1921-05-28

OFFICIAL REPORT


Volume I:: Pages 1-1000	Volume II: Pages 1001-2026


Volume III:: Pages 2027-3003	Volume IV: Pages 3005-4040


Volume V:: Pages 4041-4580	,



VOLUME CL


[Stage Direction]
House of Commons ©efmtes
[Stage Direction]
Saturday, May 28, 1921

[Stage Direction]
Draft conventions and recommendations of the International Labour Conference at Washington, 1919, and the International Labour Conference at Geneva, 1920, with memorandum from the Labour Department.-Right Hon. Mr. Doherty.
Papers, correspondence and copy of Order in Council in connection with the sale of His Majesty's Canadian ship Niobe and submarines.-Hon. Mr. Ballantyne.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Mr. J. A. Currie (North Simcoe), the second report of the Joint Committee of both Houses on the Printing of Parliament was concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 218 (from the Senate) for the relief of Susan Lee Johnson Bell,-Mr. McMaster.

Mr. HUME CRONYN (London) moved:: That the third and final report ot the Special Committee on Pensions, Insurance, and Reestablishment be considered and that the recommendations contained therein be commended to the consideration of the Government.
He said: In rising to make this motion I must reaffirm the difficulty expressed on a similar occasion last session. After being immersed for ten weeks in practically one subject, although with an infinite variety of detail; after listening to evidence which will fill a large volume; after wrestling with problems which although world-wide nevertheless affect, and in some respects vitally, the position of the returned soldier in Canada, and after finding oneself baffled despite the fullest discussion and consideration in reaching a full solution of these, it is hard to know how to present the case to the House.
Believing as I do that the report will receive the approval of the great majority of the members, it seems almost futile to weary them with explanations, but perhaps it is due to the country, to the returned man and to the committee itself that some expansion of the report should be made.
After the usual opening which recites the facts of the committee's deliberations, and the many suggestions submitted to it, the report gives an epitome of what this country has done for the returned man since he bade good-bye to his fighting unit. This summary mentions first the amount expended on war gratuities, including those paid to Canadians who fought with the Imperial forces, and indicates that at the end of the last fiscal year there was paid out on this account, without including cost of administration, in the neighborhood of $164,000,000. This money was expended by the Department of Militia and Defence and apparently no separate account was kept of the cost incurred in disbursing so large a sum among many hundreds of thousands of applicants.
Next on the list are placed the pensions paid since the beginning of the war, which with the cost of administration have amounted to the large total of about $90,000,000.
The expenditures connected with reestablishment have been even greater than that on pensions, nor will this appear surprising when the list of the activities of the Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment are considered. Starting with medical treatment from the inception of the Hospitals Commission and continued to the present day there come in review:	Vocational
training, pay and allowances to those



REVISED EDITION. COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
under treatment and training, loans to vocational students, training and care of the blind, post-discharge dental treatment, the provision of artificial limbs and other appliances for the mutilated, the establishment of employment services throughout the country, and the relief measures extended during the two past winters to the disabled and needy. There has been spent on these various forms of assistance no less a sum than $102,300,000. It would be both interesting and instructive to go further into the various divisions of the work carried out by this department, but to do so would occupy a considerable length of time, and, save for setting down in Hansard what may be already found in the reports of the department, would not justify the attempt. After all, the above figures speak for themselves, and to any one who has seen fit to investigate the efforts made and still being carried on, these will not come as a surprise.
Next in order is the great work done under the Soldier Settlement Act, which has been attended with a larger measure of success than even the most optimistic dared to hope. This very success has tended to swell the amounts the country has had to advance to establish some 20,000 returned men on farms throughout the Dominion. After deducting repayments of principal received from soldier settlers, etc., to an amount approximating $4,000,000, we find there still remains a liability for loans made and for cost of management of nearly $83,000,000. It is believed the progress of the whole scheme to date justifies the hope that a considerable portion of the above amount will be returned to the public treasury with interest, and this assurance must reconcile us to the prospect that large sums must as yet be advanced to applicants who are steadily qualifying themselves to take advantage of the provisions made.
The only other actual expenditure noted is one of $2,800,000, which it cost the country to transport from overseas the dependents of soldiers. This added to the other four and much larger items, gives us a total of $442,700,000, which Canada, quite apart from her war effort, has been called upon to raise. Aside from these more definite and striking items of expense, there must not be forgotten the Returned Soldiers' Insurance Act, under which there is a present liability of over $7,000,000, a liability, however, which will be largely reduced by the premiums to be received from those insured under its pro-
visions. Then, too, we have the effort made by the Civil Service Commission to find employment for the returned man in the public service. This has resulted in something like 29,000 temporary appointments and about 8,000 ex-service men being installed in permanent public positions. Nor should we lose sight of the effort of the Government to redeem at par any sterling funds which might be brought by the soldiers to Canada. As evidence of how this effort was appreciated may be mentioned the fact that up to date pounds sterling to the value of about $14,500,000 of our currency have been redeemed without loss to those who took advantage of the offer. The cost of this transaction has not yet been ascertained, but recalling the heavy discount at which sterling stood until a few months ago, it will be seen that the country bore a very substantial loss which otherwise would have fallen upon the ex-service man.
In summarizing the above activities no credit has been taken for the moneys voted and expended in aid of the Federal Housing Project. Although this measure in the province of British Columbia was utilized for the sole advantage of the returned soldier, while in other provinces the same class largely benefited from its operations, yet its aim was a general one and the amount advanced on loan to the provinces and by the provinces to the municipalities should not be included.
Nor has any account been taken of the large sums distributed by the provinces and municipalities without aid from the Dominion, the efforts of the Patriotic Fund, Red Cross and various soldier organization's and philanthropic societies which to a greater or less extent were financed by voluntary contribution. Even without regarding the above named extra federal agencies, Canada as a whole, through the Dominion authorities has raised between $450,000,000 and $500,000,000 in redemption of her promise to care . for the returned man. Even in these days df big figures and huge deficits the above are not small sums and may at least be taken as an earnest that the country is not unmindful of her obligation.
It was perhaps not within the competence of the committee to estimate what in future will be spent to further implement that obligation, but after some inquiry along these lines the conclusion was reached, having regard to pension payments, to the activities under the other branches of the Department of Soldiers'

Civil Re-establishment, and to the further amounts needed by the Soldier Settlement Board, that a conservative estimate of the federal liability for the current fiscal year would not be less than $75,000,000.
We now come to the immediate objects for which the committee was convened, and as the report states, it was faced with much the same difficulty as I am in on the present occasion, viz.: how much should be included and how much omitted? There were placed before the committee several hundred resolutions and suggestions emanating from departments, soldier organizations and individuals throughout the country. These were tabulated for the committee, credit in each case being given to the source from which it came. As was inevitable, a proportion were more or less in repetition of suggestions submitted to former committees and discussed at length both by those bodies and, to a certain extent, in the House. It is not to he expected that following years of public consideration and discussion, any wholly new suggestions could be made. There are however, as will appear by the report, logical developments along certain lines which it has taken time and much experimental work to bring to a point where practical plans could be evolved.
In view of the above situation, the committee decided that the wiser and more effective method was to mention only those subjects wherein definite action could be recommended or suggested. In a few instances, however, certain proposals which did not receive the committee's support are set forth in its report. This was done to give an opportunity of briefly explaining the committee's view thereon, or for the purpose of directing the attention of the Government and the country to matters which might later call for action.
Let it be understood then, that the committee received and considered scores of suggestions which find no mention in the report. Permit me to repeat on this point the following clause taken from the report itself:
It is well to emphasize the fact that the mere absence of an expression of an opinion does not indicate a failure to consider any 'one of the many suggestions received. Once more let it be repeated that each and every one of these was submitted to, discussed by, and decided on by your committee. If then those who are interested in a special question submitted to the committee find no reference thereto in this report they may understand the committee found itself unable to make any recommendation on the subject.
If I fail to refer to the work of the subcommittee which considered individual
cases, it is because I hope that this aspect of the question may be taken up by those who can speak more directly on the subject.
I have always had some doubt about the advisability of a committee such as ours 

overwhelmed as it is by questions involving matters of general interest to the soldier-acting as a court of appeal to review a particular decision covering the case of a single individual. Comparing small things to great, the extension of the committee's powers in this respect may be likened to the growth of the national status of Canada, a condition which admits of large differences of opinion, but which persists, nevertheless, in entailing added duties and responsibilities. However that may be, it is clear the committee is regarded as a court before which individual complaints can he lodged, and I desire to bear testimony to the efficient and thorough manner in which the subcommittee charged with this work, performed its duties.
After this somewhat protracted introduction let me come to the immediate subjects of the committee's inquiry, viz.: Soldiers' Insurance, Pensions and Re-establishment.
Insurance.-The Returned Soldiers' Insurance Act passed at the last session of Parliament, has been functioning since September 1, 1920. During that period up to the end of the fiscal year, nearly 2,400 policies on the lives of returned men had been placed, and this figure is reached after deducting those policies which have been cancelled or have lapsed. As was foreseen, many of these were taken out by men whose condition of health was desperate, and within a few short months (that is, from September to March 14), 28 claims have been received with a liability thereunder of $121,000. We can set against this immediate liability the sum of $95,000, which at the end of the fiscal year had been received from the assured. The outstanding liability on policies in force is something over $7,000,000, but this will undoubtedly be much reduced by the receipt of premiums which each month will be paid into the treasury.
The comment is obvious that but small numbers of the returned men have taken advantage of the Act. Many reasons for this state of affairs will suggest themselves. The plan was not intended to appeal to or cover the man whose health is unimpaired; such a one can secure protection from the many life companies transacting business in Canada at a slightly higher cost, but with privileges purposely omitted from the national plan. We may be sure that these
[Stage Direction]
advantages are not minimized by insurance agents throughout the country, and as is only natural, the healthy soldier turns elsewhere when he can secure his insurance on precisely the same terms as does the civilian. Apart from these very obvious reasons, the information before the committee showed that notwithstanding a persistent and widespread effort to lay before the ex-service man the benefits of the Act, there yet exists a vast amount of ignorance and a good deal of misapprehension on the subject. If the Dominion of Canada were entering upon this plan with the same aim as dominates most life companies, viz.: to underwrite as large an amount ofA insurance as could safely be assumed* one would have no hesitation in adopting the plan of these companies, and employing agents on commission through the length and breadth of the land to advocate this particular form of insurance. But this aim is far removed from the idea which animated Parliament in placing the Act in question on the statute book. It was at that time carefully explained that the underlying object of the plan was to permit the man whose health was impaired by service to obtain some measure of protection for his dependents at a minimum of cost and without regard for what might be his expectation of life. It will be remembered that the man himself can gain no benefit under this policy, save in the case of his becoming permanently disabled. He cannot use the policy as a commercial asset, or pledge it for his debts. The beneficiaries thereunder are strictly limited to those who are, or may be, dependent upon him, and payments under the policy, instead of being paid in a lump sum, are spread over a term of years-in the hope of thus protecting the beneficiaries against loss owing to unwise investments, or fraud.
If then the majority of ex-service men can have brought to their attention the objects of the Act and can be made to understand with fairness its exact provisions, the country, under the plan as devised, is not called upon by means of a sales force, or other high pressure methods, to enter at large into the insurance field. There remains some doubt as to whether we have adequately fulfilled the primary duty of publicity and explanation, and the report, therefore, recommends that a limited number of returned soldiers after proper instructions, between now and September 1, 1922, when the Act goes out of operation, should lay before their comrades a full explanation of its terms.

So far as can be judged by representations made to the committee, the main causes for criticism of the present Act may be placed under three heads:
1st. That the initial payment to beneficiaries is limited to one-fifth of the face of the policy. It is clear that where a policy is for the minimum amount, viz: $500, or indeed until it exceeds $1,000, the payment of one-fifth would produce so small a sum as to be of little real assistance to, say, a widow who is faced with the debts consequent on her husband's illness and death. Again in the case of these small policies, the balance due to beneficiaries must, under the terms of the Act, be spread over a series of years, not less than five. This means that, under the minimum policy, the widow or other beneficiary would receive about $100 per annum, manifestly too small a sum to bo of real benefit. The committee therefore suggests that the initial payment shall be $1,000, or the full amount of the policy if the latter be not in excess of that sum. This means that on policies for $1,000 or less, the whole amount will be paid on death, and that for policies over that amount, $1,000 shall be paid on death, and the balance over a term of years. About forty per cent of the policies written are for the maximum amount of $5,000 each, so that the suggestion above noted makes no alteration to this class. It will, however, come as a distinct relief to the beneficiaries under those policies for an amount less than the maximum.
2nd. That the benefits of the Act are restricted to those residing in Canada. It has been pointed out that applications for insurance have been made by some 400 or 500 former members of the Canadian Expeditionary Force, now resident in the United States. Many of these men have, because of their disabilities, removed to warmer climate, and it appears unfair to them that they are unable to protect their dependents. Your committee has recommended that the provisions of the Act be extended to all members of the Canadian forces, no matter where resident.
3rd. That the provision in the Act which deducts from the policy the present value of pensions payable to the beneficiaries, is illiberal and unfair. The provision was inserted in the Act by last year's committee after very full consideration and discussion. It must not be forgotten that the primary object of the whole plan is to enable the soldier to protect his dependents. If these dependents then are receiving a measure of protection by way

of a pension, it was thought to be contrary to the object of the Act, and, as well, unfair to the State, to allow the beneficiaries to receive, as it were, a double benefit. It will he remembered that where such a reduction is made, the premiums paid are returned to the beneficiaries with accumulated interest at four per cent. It may he asked:	Why, under such circumstances, should a totally disabled man bother about insurance when he knows that upon his death from the effect of service his dependents will be pensioned? The answer is that if he should die from some cause other than service, his dependents will not he pensioned, but if he he insured they will receive the benefit of his forethought and prudence. In a sense, therefore, to a man in this class a policy under the Act is a more extended type of accident insurance.
This point was again considered by your committee, and although no mention is made of it in tfie report, the decision was against any change.
Before leaving this particular matter reference should be made to the doubt expressed as to the method of calculating the present value of pensions when deducted from a policy. It is clear that this calculation is upon a strictly actuarial basis. The governing factors are the amount of the pension and the term during which it will be paid, involving, as the latter does, the age of the pensioner.
One or two amendments to the Insurance Act are as well suggested, and a Bill to cover the same is attached to the report. When the Bill comes before the House in committee, explanations on these points will be forthcoming.
May I say here that owing to an oversight of mine this report, which was tabled two days ago, was not put in the hands of the Prime Minister early enough to enable him to read it Until this morning, and he was not until then aware that this committee had recommended amendments to three Acts, the Insurance Act, the Pensions Act, and the Civil Service Act. Yesterday, I understand a statement was made, in reply to a question, that the Government had no further legislation in view. We certainly trust that the House will put the amendments approved by the committee into force this session; otherwise, our recommendations on many points would fall to the ground.
In addition to these amendments the committee recommends that regulations be framed to provide that as soon as an application has been approved by the proper officers, and the premium paid, such approval shall be held to have the same legal effect as if the policy had been delivered to the assured. Under the existing law an insurance contract is not, as a rule, enforceable unless and until the policy has been delivered to the insured. The proposal of the committee is a modification of that law in favour of the soldier. Cases have arisen where a disabled man has done all he should by putting in his application and paying his premium. Before, however, his policy could issue, he has died, and in consequence his beneficiaries derive no benefit. If this plan were one of ordinary insurance, or even of the latest type which does not require medical examination, it would be unwise to make any change of the kind proposed, but coming back once more to the fundamental object of the whole scheme, it is felt that where the soldier in good faith has taken the necessary steps, it would be unfair to penalize his dependents if death supervene before the actual delivery of the policy.
Another suggested change in the regulations will permit a pensioner to assign a portion of his pension to meet the premium due on his policy. This is open to the objection that pensions are at times altered, or suspended as in the event of medical treatment under the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment. Under such conditions, the insured's pension having ceased or being diminished, his premiums may remain unpaid and his policy may lapse. The committee, however, thought that the preponderance of convenience to the average pensioner would be such as to warrant an attempt along the lines indicated.
Under the Act, the maximum policy which can be written is for $5,000, and applications cannot be considered after Sep-temper 1, 1922. Representations were made that the limits in both of these restrictions should be enlarged, hut the opinion of the committee was against such extensions.
Pensions.-As before mentioned, the pension bill has reached a total of $91,000,000, and it is estimated that for the current year, including administration, not less than $33,000,000 will be required. The number of pensions in force exceeds 70,000, while if we include the wives of disability pensioners, their children, the children of widows, and orphan children, we find there are over 150,000 individuals benefiting from this source.
[Stage Direction]
As will be recalled, the House last session increased pensions to the disabled, to widows and dependent parents resident in Canada, by a bonus of 50 per cent over the basic rates which were reached in 1917, and further increases, not by way of a bonus, were at the same time granted in respect of wives and children. This increase came into effect as and from September last, since when the totally disabled unmarried man, whose rank is below that of captain, has been in receipt of $75 a month or $900 a year, and such a man if married and with three children of pensionable age (thus making up an average family of five), has been paid $137 a month, or $1,644 a year. If in addition to his disability he is in a helpless condition, a further allowance up to $750 a year can be granted him to meet the cost of attendance, nursing, etc.
It has been pointed out on former occasions that the above figures represent a striking increase from the ^pensions awarded in the earlier years of the war. For instance, in 1914 the pension for total disability was the utterly ridiculous sum of $150 per annum. That rose early in 1915 to $264; was again increased the following year to $480, and reached in the autumn of 1917 what is now denominated the basic rate of $600 per annum. In 1919 a 20 per cent bonus on that basic rate was granted, which bonus was, as just sail}, increased to 50 per cent last year. I do not delay to compare in like fashion the increases in pensions to the disabled man who is married, but without family, or to widows, widowed mothers or other dependents. While the latter have not been put upon the same basis as a totally disabled man, their pensions have, nevertheless, been frequently and sensibly increased The basic rate for the widow fixed in 1917 was $40 a month, or $480 a year. By the addition of a bonus of 50 per cent she has since September been paid $60 a month, and if she has children of pensionable age she receives as well, $180 per annum for the first child, $144 for the second child, and $120 for the third and each subsequent child.
The object to be attained in awarding pensions is not to compensate the recipient for the loss which he or she may have suffered. To attempt this on even a moderate scale would bankrupt the wealthiest nation. What is aimed at is to give an amount sufficient to maintain the pensioner in decent comfort.
It goes without saying, that as commodity prices rise, or the value of the dollar

shrinks, it is imperative that pensions must at least keep pace with the rise, or otherwise the standard of decent comfort must be abandoned. A like reasoning leads to the conclusion that when prices fall and the dollar returns to its old purchasing power, pensions may be lowered without departure from the standard fixed. It is exceedingly difficult in a country so widespread as Canada, with its varying conditions of livelihood, to generalize on what is or what is not a sufficient income for any man or woman. The best one can hope to do is to compare pensions with incomes earned in various walks of life, and to secure the opinion of those who are brought into intimate touch with the pensioner and his dependents.
Without attempting to make an exhaustive analysis of the situation, I think it may be fairly said that outside of a few exceptional expensive localities, pensions to the totally disabled, widows and widowed mothers do very fairly fulfil to-day their proper functions and object.
The question then arises, has the time come when some modification can justly be made? It is apparent to all that for some months the cost of living has had a downward tendency. This is confirmed by the figures collected under the Department of Labour, which show the average prices in 60 cities of Canada, of those necessities required to maintain a family of five. The chart prepared by that department for the use of the committee gives in graphic form the trend of the prices in this family budget from 1913 down to March of this year. So far as my knowledge goes, this is the first chart to show, not only rentals, fuel and food, but as well the items of clothing and sundries. From it at a glance, it can be seen that during the months of June and July of 1920 the budget had reached its highest point since the war, when it was just twice what it had been in 1913. Since then there has been some decline, notably in foods and clothing, a decline which, however, has been offset to some extent by a stiffening in rentals, and high prices for fuel. In March of this year the budget stood at the same level as that prevailing during the latter months of 1919, but it has still a long way to fall before it reaches the level of 1917, when were fixed the basic rates for pensions.
The committee had no hesitation in deciding that the bonus of 50 per cent should be maintained for another twelve months, that is, until September 1, 1922. It is to be feared that few pensioners have been in a

position to make any saving, indeed, it is more than probable that during the high period of last year, many went into debt, and, as the inclination of the committee throughout their inquiries was to err on the side of generosity, it was agreed that until we had a more definite and permanent return to pre-war prices, no reduction should be made.
Intensely bitter complaints were voiced to the committee against the decision of last year that the bonus of 50 per cent should apply only to those who are resident in Canada, while the former pension of 20 per cent was continued to those living outside of the country. This discrimination was felt more keenly by Canadian pensioners residing in the United States, both because of the discount which they had to pay on their pension cheques, and as well for the reason that in the American republic the totally disabled unmarried pensioner receives $100 a month, or $1,200 a year. This is, I believe, the single instance in which the pensions paid by Canada to the rank and file fall below those of any other country. Even in the United States, the pension to the totally disabled married man is exactly the same as that now paid to the Canadian, while the disabled Canadian pensioner with a family receives sensibly more than does the American.
It may be argued that these men reside south of the Canadian border of their own volition, and that if they desire to take advantage of the more attractive rates in this country, they should move to Canada. In fairness to them it should be said that for the most part they are either Canadians, or men of British origin, who before the war were living in the United States. Fired by sentiment they enlisted with our forces before their then adopted country entered the struggle. Further, it is alleged that Canadian recruiting agencies at that time promised those volunteers they would be treated on exactly the same basis as those who were enlisting in Canada. It is but natural that men who enlisted in the United States should return to their homes and friends, nor am I able to seriously criticise the Canadian who after the war, finding it difficult to obtain employment in Canada, discovered for himself a job in the land to the south. The committee recommends that the distinction raised, I believe for the first time last year, between pensioners within and outside of Canada, should now be withdrawn, as from September 1, next, and that all be placed on an equal footing. We believe, however, the former sound rule of
paying funds in Canadian currency should be continued, although this may result in a loss to those who reside in the United States and a gain to those living in Great Britain.
To this point we have been considering only the cases of those who are wholly disabled, or the dependents of those who have fallen. It must not be forgotten that there exists a much larger class numerically, of men who have suffered some partial disability, and are awarded a proportionate amount of pension. The problem of the partially disabled man has been rendered distinctly more acute by the depression in trade and industry, with its consequent unemployment. No amount of theorizing can alter the fact, hard and even cruel though it may be, that in competition with the fit man, whose efficiency should be 100 per cent, the disabled will too often fail of employment. It is easy to justify the logical ruling that a man 50 per cent disabled should not get more than one-half of the amount paid to his wholly disabled brother. Indeed should you pay more 'than 50 per cent pension to a man 50 per cent disabled, how much more are you going to pay the man whose disability is fixed at 60-70-80 or 90 per cent? And yet the stubborn condition remains, that the man who has had half of his capacity for work destroyed, and who is in theory, and frequently in appearance, only 50 per cent efficient, gets but a limited chance to earn even half the wage of the fit workman. This is not to be wondered at, because most of the jobs in the industrial world call for fully efficient labour, and the posts that can be properly filled by disabled men are not only few but are usually reserved for the old employee, or for the man who has been injured in the industry which still employs him.
Under the heading of "Re-establishment" will be found certain suggestions which it is hoped may aid in overcoming this difficult situation; a discussion of these will be postponed until that point is reached.
Perhaps I have continued at too great length on this one line, but I shall hope to pass more rapidly over the other section of the report dealing with pensions.
The House will recall the position of the widowed mother and the pleas made in her favour, both during this and former sessions. The report of the committee deals fully with this subject, and I do not think I can do better than to read the paragraphs which relate thereto:-
[Stage Direction]
4. (a) The position of widowed mothers in relation to pension has received the attention of every previous committee and has, as well, been discussed by the House during this and former sessions. The widow of a soldier receives her pension as of right, wholly without reference to her financial position. A widowed mother, on the contrary, has heretofore by our Pension Law been called upon to prove as a condition precedent to award of pension, substantial dependency-either actual or prospective-upon her deceased soldier son.
(b)	It is suggested that this distinct variation in treatment arises from that provision of the law which binds every husband to support his wife, while save in the Province of Quebec, no such legal obligation towards a mother is laid upon her son. Even in that Province your Committee is advised a mother must be in need, or in the words of the Pension Act must be in a "dependent condition" before she can substantiate her claim for support.
(c)	Parliament has during the past two years ameliorated the position of widowed mothers by providing that no reduction be made in the pension of a widowed mother because of her personal earnings or because she has the advantages of free lodgings, by reason of the ownership of her home or otherwise, nor if she be resident in Canada because she is in receipt of income from outside sources of not more than $20.00 a month. In so far as that income exceeds the sum of $20.00 a month the pension is reduced. A reduction is at present also made on account of actual contributions made by other members of the family and not less than $10.00 a month is deducted on account of each unmarried son residing with her whom the Pension Commissioners consider should be able to contribute to her support.
(d)	To the above extent it will be noted there has been a departure from the original and perhaps unreasonable rule, that even the smallest income or emolument accruing to a widowed mother must be deducted from her pension. What is now urged is that a widowed mother shall be paid a pension as of right, without reference to her dependence upon her son or to her own financial resources; or to put it in another way, that widowed mothers shall be placed upon the same basis as widows.
(e)	Your committee has given this subject very earnest consideration. To abolish the existing restrictions and award pension as of right to every mother of a deceased soldier, as and when she becomes a widow, would add many millions to the pension bill. It would moreover result in the anomaly that mothers with ample income would receive an added supply from the country's treasury, while she who is less fortunate in wordly wealth, although her sacrifice was as great, would have nothing save her pension upon which to live. That a similar anomaly exists in the case of widows does not justify the proposal and your committee therefore is unable to recommend same.
I doubt if I need delay the House to enlarge on what I have just read. If we are prepared to admit that the pension awarded to the widowed mother is sufficient to maintain her in decent comfort, there can be little ground for changing the present regulations. If that pension be not sufficient, then we should increase not only it, but the pension awarded to widows, because JMr. Cronyn.]
it must not be forgotten that both these classes of pensioners receive the same amount. I am prepared to agree there are the strongest sentimental considerations for treating widowed mothers with the greatest generosity, but do not let us forget that to pension a widowed mother who has financial resources of her own, would in reality be class legislation of an unfair kind, even though it may be justified under a well-known Biblical quotation.
The remaining suggestions and recommendations with regard to pensions are passed over without comment; they are set out somewhat fully in the report and upon perusal will readily be understood.
Re-establishment.-We now come to the third subject submitted to the committee, which is comprised under the general term of "Re-establishment." When we recall the list of activities mentioned earlier in my remarks under the charge of the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment, we can understand that re-establishment covers a wide field, and we must add to these the large undertaking of the Soldiers' Settlement Board and a variety of more or less disconnected suggestions which came before the committee, shortly set forth in the last page of the report. The chief task of the committee on this branch of its inquiry was a consideration of the problem of unemployment as it directly affects the ex-service man, together with those other aspects of the same problem in its bearing on the disabled; the after-care of the tuberculous, and what are known as "Problem and Handicap Cases.'' Hon. members may question the association of care of the tuberculous with unemployment, but there has emerged from the close study given to this grave disease a definite body of opinion that the State, for its own well-being, should provide, not only the suffering soldier, but as well the stricken civilian, some form of sheltered employment which at one and the same time will aid in his recovery, guard against infection, utilize what (modicum of effort the patient can expend and thus render the whole body of unfortunates happier and more contented.
Let us return for a moment to' the returned man fit for work, who is unable to obtain it. We have declined-and, in my opinion, for fundamentally sound reasons-to grant further general cash bonuses or gratuities. I cannot add anything of value to what has time and again been repeated in the House on this point. We have also failed to discover any practical

plan whereby the country can loan money to returned men to enable them to reestablish themselves in business, trade or occupation* Here too the ground has been most fully covered, and I need perhaps but quote from the report of the committee of last year, when, in dealing with this subject, it makes the following statement:
The difficulty which faced your committee was the conviction that a grant to any particular class or classes, no matter how worthy or pressing their needs might he, must inevitably result in the widest extension of a system of loans for all and every purpose of re-establishment.
No concrete, workable plan whereby such a general system of advances could be safely adopted has been suggested, and your committee feels unable to recommend any scheme which could equitably supply the demands of the many whose suggestions have been sought to its attention.
This year the committee had brought before it in striking manner the pressing need for some measure of relief from the prevailing unemployment, particular stress being laid upon what was termed a "Dominion Housing Scheme," as the best available agency for this purpose. The Great War Veterans' Association were notable advocates of such a nature. The committee was addressed on more than one occasion by Mr. MacNeil, its Dominion Secretary, who, in the most forcible terms he could command, besought the committee to adopt some proposal of the kind. He perhaps purposely refrained from laying down any definite programme; but, as the report states, the plan mentioned by him contemplates an expenditure of $50,000,000. From a memorandum filed with the committee by Mr. Thomas Adams, whose report and evidence on this and kindred subjects were of the utmost value, it appears that the Great War Veterans' Association plan proposed that the administration of the fund noted above should be entrusted to the Soldiers' Settlement Board, whose organization and experience peculiarly fit them for undertaking such a task.
Doubtless, due to the inspiration of the Dominion Executive, the committee received a score or more of telegraphic appeals from the various commands of the association throughout the West. In British Columbia these were indorsed by independent business bodies who are evidently of the opinion that the Federal Housing Project, a project in that province utilized for the sole benefit of the returned man, had proved a success.
Many of the later meetings of the committee were occupied in discussing this
question, which had as full consideration as time would allow. After frequent conferences the committee decided the wise^, method to recommend would be an extension of the original Federal Housing Project, provided that any new Dominion grant should be utilized by the provinces and municipalities for the benefit of ex-service men.
So far as the disabled are concerned, one or two specific suggestions are puc forward in the report, which it is hoped will distinctly improve their position. The more general one suggests that the Dominion should assume the responsibility for damages which are incurred when a disabled soldier is injured by an industrial accident. Hon. members will understand that in most of the provinces, under the provision of Workmen's Compensation Acts, the employer is called upon to pay an assessment or premium by virtue of which his injured workmen are compensated for injuries received in his employ. These assessments form part of the operating cost of the industry, and if accidents increase unduly, a demand is made upon the employer for heavier payments.
Experience has shown that a man who enters an industry already disabled, is more liable to suffer from accident than is he who is physically sound, and there appears to be no doubt that some employers hesitate to take on disabled veterans if they can fill their factory or workshop with fit men. The report sets out in detail the conditions upon which the country should assume this liability, but I need not delay the House in going into these particulars.
Another suggestion made, which it is believed will materially aid the disabled man, is that he is given a distinct preference for entry into public service, a preference not only over the civilian, but, as well, over his comrades who do not suffer from his handicap. An amendment to the Civil Service Act to carry this suggestion into effect is attached to the report and can be more fully discussed when a Bill embodying it is introduced to the House.	_
Other suggestions have been made, which it is hoped will tend to aid the situation. For instance, it is thought that the Government expenditure on public works, and the purchases of supplies placed every year on behalf of departments, etc., might be so distributed as to prevent an undue pressure of work during certain months of | the year and subsequent cessation at other times. In the opinion of the
[Stage Direction]

committee, and those who appeared before it, it is desirable rather that our industries should keep so far as possible on something like a normal working basis throughout the whole year, rather than that they should be forced to speed up at some particular season in order that they may fill Government deliveries, when these deliveries might by some forethought, be spread over a longer term. Again, it was thought that when economy (or other changes necessitated large reductions in the staffs of the Canadian National Railways, or the Canadian Government Merchant Marine, the returned man should, so far as would be compatible with good management and fair play, be the last one to be let out. The action of the Federal authorities in regulating immigration so as to prevent unemployment was noted, although the committee felt its jurisdiction hardly extended to so wide a question as this.
The larger portion of this section of the report is occupied by a discussion of the problem and handicap cases and of the after-care of the tuberculous. The paragraphs dealing with these matters are more or less technical, and require careful perusal, to fully appreciate what has been done. The committee was largely guided on this question by a voluminous report to the Department of Soldiers Civil Reestablishment issuing from a board of five expert consultants on tuberculosis. This Board, under the direction of the Department visited twenty-six Sanatoria for tuberculous patients throughout Canada, and, after a complete and painstaking survey of these institutions, they issued what to my mind will be accepted throughout the,whole world as an advanced and sane report. In the opinion of these experts which was, I believe, fully concurred in by the committee, the logical and proper development of the great work of the care of the tuberculous and the handicapped man, starting as it does in sanatoria and other institutions, will be found in the establishment of some form of sheltered employment whether this be known under the name of " Vet-Craft Shop "-" SubStandard Factory " or otherwise.
Attention is called to the View that these newer and to a certain extent experimental institutions can be more happily administered by other than purely governmental organizations, and the idea is thrown out that the Canadian Red Cross may continue and perpetuate its remarkable war work by taking charge of at least some of these enterprises. Other organizations like the 
Daughters of the Empire, or associations formed among the tuberculous should, as well, work to help in a solution of the problem. Back of them all must stand the Federal Government ready to supply the needed funds and keep due control of the expenditure of the same through the Department of Soldiers Civil Re-establishment. The care of the tuberculous both in a sanatorium and after they have left its walls, has been distinctly handicapped by the lack of properly trained medical men and nursing staff. Outside of the province of Manitoba, I am given to understand, there exists no institution where students, doctors or nurses can receive special training to fit them in this particular line of medical work. While our sanatoria are modern, well equipped and excellently run, it is difficult, under the pressure of a mass of patients needing daily care, to secure a proper diagnosis of those obscure cases which are on the border line of this malady. The treatment of these cases, too, must be outside of the ordinary routine, and to get the best results, which may mean the salvation of the patient, calls for special equipment, observation and treatment.
The committee recommends by its report that the department enter into negotiations with an institution agreed on by all to be ideal for the above purposes, in order that the same may be enlarged, in part at least at public expense, and the added space thus gained devoted to the welfare of soldier patients. My remarks have already run to so great a length that I feel unable to review even briefly the operations under the Soldiers' Settlement Act, and the several unconnected general suggestions and recommendations with which the report deals. As to the Soldiers' Settlement Board, perhaps the best testimony of the opinion in which it is held by ex-service men is to be found in the proposal noted above, that i't should take charge of a widespread and complicated housing scheme.
The committee was asked to suggest some fair method of disposal of what are known as canteen funds, which, to an amount of some $2,000,000, are in the hands of the Receiver General for Canada. This money is the property of the soldier as his share of the profits arising from the operation of the military canteens in France and elsewhere. Several suggestions regarding these funds were received by the committee, but in its view the matter is one solely for the decision of the ex-service man, and the committee felt that decision

should not be prejudiced by any expression of opinion in its report. Had time allowed the committee might have attempted to secure through the larger soldier organizations a considered decision on this question, but as this was' impossible the suggestion is made that the Government should confer with these organizations and adopt some method of obtaining the view of the men.
In closing may I be allowed to thank my fellow-members of the committee for their attendance at its many meetings and for the assistance and encouragement given to its chairman. I am well aware our protracted sessions frequently interfered with other parliamentary duties, but it is fortunate for the cause in which we are all interested that other matters were put to one side, and as a result we had a wonderfully high average of sustained attendance, a condition which the members of the House will recognize contributes much to informed discussion and proper judgment.
Were I personally disposed to begrudge the time spent on the work of the committee it would be upon the sole ground that its , call for continued attention has been so absorbing as to debar me from keeping abreast of the general programme before the House. To such an extent has that condition persisted that for two months or more it might fairly be said that the city of London was not represented in the House of Commons.
It has been the custom and practice of the committees on soldiers' affairs with which I have had the privilege to be associated to refrain from expression of sentiment, and on the surface at least to deal with all questions before them in that more equable atmosphere which leads to juster conclusions. After all "deeds not words is a fitting motto for those who deal in matters of war.
I hesitate to break this tradition although my Celtic ancestry makes me perhaps less sensitive than those of sterner mould in publicly voicing one's inmost thoughts.
Lest, however, those whose requests we have been compelled to deny-and I am aware we have perforce had to refuse many such-should be inclined to call in question our attitude, let me assure them that I speak but the bare truth when I say that the committee's watchwords were "generosity and justice," and that the greater of these was generosity.
A few months ago it was my great fortune to travel a portion of the battlefields of Belgium and Northern France. This visit ena bled me to comprehend more clearly
something of what our men did and suffered. It will cause the trench-hardened warrior to laugh, to think that even the most vivid imagination could reconstruct anything to approach actuality. That is doubtless so, but as the child is impressed by a wreck-strewn shore and can vaguely visualize the storm which produced it, so may we, the inexperienced, gain a glimpse of the terrible reality by viewing the aftermath of war's cyclonic rage. After passing through countless ruined towns, deserts of brick and stone so slowly being restored, we stood in that horrid plain which lies beyond the town of Ypres. At the sight of that desolate morass, churned and pockmarked by shell-holes, whereon naught grew but dun rushes and tangled masses of creepers whose thorns rivalled the barbs of the rusting wire through which they struggled, without note of bird or other sound of animal life-naught, indeed, but "the. little children of the wind crying solitary in lonely places"-with the horizon outlined by the ghastly and ghostly fingers of dead and riven trees; I was able to gain some faint idea of the stuff our men were made of when fcr months under far more appalling conditions than I could outline they not only fought and defeated the enemy but withstood the terror that flew by night and the pestilence that walked at noonday.
Then, Sir, I recalled the lines, penned half a century since but still apposite to our times:
I with uplifted head salute the sacred dead Who went-and who return not? Say not so, Virtue hath paths that lead not to the grave.
No ban of endless night exiles the brave,
And, to the saner mind, we rather seem the dead who stayed behind.
And on that spot with these words in my mind, I strongly resolved that we who, through age or other giant circumstance were debarred from taking part in the actual struggle, should by such puny sacrifice of effort or funds as we can offer prove at least that we are alive to the debt we owe to those who fought and died.
Mr. I. E. PEDLOW (South Renfrew) :: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the first place to offer my hearty congratulations to the chairman (Mr. Cronyn) and his committee on the report which has just been presented to the House. It is undoubtedly the result of an immense amount of careful, painstaking work on their part, and I extend to them sincere thanks not only on behalf of the members of this House but also on behalf of the men whom they have been so greatly interested in.


Mr. SPEAKER:: This motion is not in order. The report of the Pensions Committee is before the House for concurrence or rejection. If the hon. member moves to refer the report back to the committee, with instructions, he will be quite in order.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I am in the hands of the Chair in regard to a matter of that kind, as I am not conversant with what is the proper procedure.


Mr. BELAND:: Is it not competent, Mr. Speaker, for any member to move that certain paragraphs be added to the report submitted?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If it were a consequential amendment or a motion of that character it would be quite in order. The report of the committee, however, is before the House for consideration on a specific motion. I have no objection to altering the phraseology of this motion so as to put it in proper form and that is what I purpose doing.
It is moved in amendment by Mr. Pedlow seconded by Mr. Truax:
That the said report be not now commended to the consideration of the Government but that it be referred back to the Special Com-nuttee on Pensions, Insurance and Re-establishment with Instructions that it have power to amend the said report by adding thereto, the following words:-
"Canadian born citizens to the number of 221 who enlisted in the Polish Battalion for service with the French Army in France, and who did serve overseas from June 1918 to January 1921, shall be rated as enlisted men in the Canadian Expeditionary Force in regard to (a) pay and allowances, (b) "war service gratuity and (c) pensions.


Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Militia) :: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted just a word in reply to the remarks of my hon. friend from South Renfrew (Mr. Pedlow) in regard to the Polish regiment

recruited in Canada during the summer of 1918? My information is that after the Military Service Act came into force in this country a number of men who were fit subjects for conscription and who had not up to that time volunteered their services objected to serving with the Canadian Expeditionary Force and themselves suggested that they be permitted to form something in the nature of a foreign regiment, for service, I think, in the first instance in Poland or under the authority of the government of Poland. The regiment was to be a distinctly foreign regiment for service abroad, not under the authority of the Government of Canada. Upon examination of the question it was found that a good many of the men who desired to enlist in such a regiment were familiar with the Polish tongue and not very familiar with the English tongue, and it was thought that they might perform better service in a foreign battalion than they could in a Canadian battalion. At all events the matter was left to the decision of the men themselves. They were liable to conscription; their services could be required under the law of Canada for the Canadian Expeditionary Force. But they decided, with full knowledge of the circumstances, that they would prefer to serve as a Polish regiment apart altogether from the Canadian Expeditionary Force. In the summer or autumn of 1918, between 200 and 250 men were established as a Polish regiment, went away for foreign service, and, I believe, did not return to Canada until January of the present year. I do not know why they were so long delayed. I must say that my hon. friend from South Renfrew was indefatigable in his efforts to have these men returned to Canada at a much earlier date, and perhaps his efforts very much hastened their return. The hon. gentleman has also been most insistent in his demand that these men be treated as members of the Canadian Expeditionary Force for all purposes. I have had occasion to point out to him that under the present law this cannot be done- whether or not it should be done is a matter for the House. Our law applies only to members of the Canadian Expeditionary Force so far as pay, discharge gratuities and the like are concerned. These men have not been badly treated so far as we are concerned; if they have any reason to complain it is against their own government or against foreign governments. They deliberately made the choice, with a full knowledge of the facts. The authorities in this country endeavoured in every way to persuade them to enlist with the Canadian Expeditionary
Force, because at that time we were very hard pressed for men. It was only at their express desire that they were permitted to form something like a foreign legion.
Now, when the armistice was signed the Government passed an Order in Council to provide for the payment of war service gratuity, but that order was expressly limited to the naval and land forces of Canada on active service. The first order was passed on December 21, 1918. A subsequent order was passed on December 1, 1919, making the provisions of the first order apply to those who had been demobilized or discharged prior to the armistice; but that second order likewise was expressly limited to pay and gratuity to members of His Majesty's forces. The men for whom my hon. friend from South Renfrew pleads were at no time members of His Majesty's forces, at no time part of the Canadian Expeditionary Force. It was only to such forces that gratuity could be paid under the provisions of the Orders in Council to which I have referred. I do not agree that there has been any wrongful treatment, any harsh or ill-treatment of these men. However, the matter is a fair one for discussion in the House and I shall have no objection at all to whatever view the House may take in regard to it.


Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Maison-neuve-Gaspe) :: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the enthusiasm which prevailed when the soldiers left Canada to fight for a common cause should not diminish as we get far away from the events of those days. The Poles in Canada fought the same enemy as our own soldiers fought; they enlisted bravely and did their duty heroically. It matters not whether they served under the British flag, the French flag or the Polish flag; they left Canada to fight for the common cause, and with the sanction of the Department of Militia; for no soldier could leave Canada to fight in a foreign legion, if liable for military service, without the express authorization of the department. As has been stated by my good friend the Minister of Militia (Mr. Guthrie) many of the Poles in the county of Renfrew could not speak or understand the English language; they preferred to serve under a general who is now famous throughout the world, General Haller, who organized the Polish legions serving jointly with the French troops.
Now, the question for us is whether these men are entitled to the same treatment as our own troops. Mr. Speaker, I do not

see why any distinction should be made in this regard. All the forces of democracy and liberty were fighting on the one side against a common enemy and I do not see why different treatment should be accorded to different-groups of men serving in the same cause. The Poles who are Canadian subjects but of Polish origin should not be treated differently from the French or the Belgians who are not Canadian subjects but who enlisted from Canada in their respective armies at the beginning of the war and who in respect of the Canadian Patriotic Fund were accorded the same treatment as that given our own Canadian soldiers. I was a member of that committee, and I remember that Mr. Nickle, ex-member of Parliament for Kingston, and Sir Herbert Ames were members of that committee. This was at the beginning of the war. There was enthusiasm and a desire to help all those who fought for., the same cause and the same ideals.


Mr. EDWARDS:: Did those French reservists who, on the outbreak of war, went overseas and joined French regiments, come under our payments of gratuities, the same as members of the Canadian Expeditionary Force?


Mr LEMIEUX:: What I mean is that
their families came under the Patriotic Fund.


John Wesley Edwards: But not under gratuities in the way of pensions and so forth.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I do not think so. At
the beginning of the war it was unanimously resolved by the committee appointed by the House, that families of French and Belgian reservists should be treated as the families of our Canadian soldiers. They were thus treated throughout the whole war; but I believe the case brought up by the hon. member for Renfrew South (Mr. Pedlow) this afternoon is stronger. These are Canadian subjects of Polish origin, who, at a given moment, asked the Government for permission to serve under their national colours. They served for the same cause, the same ideals; they fought the same enemy, and many of them found a heroic death on the battlefields. Why should the Canadian Government treat them differently? We are a country of different races, different creeds. We invite the various populations of the earth to settle our country. Once the settlers have come to Canada, once they have been naturalized, once they have become of our stock, there should be no differ-[Mr. Lemieux.l
ence in the treatment meted out to those new fellow-subjects of ours. I would strongly urge the Government and the committee to take the view so forcibly presented by my good friend from Renfrew South. The amount is not large. There were, I understand, only 200 of these soldiers who served under the Polish colours. It is only fair to give those people the same treatment as they would have received if they had served in the ranks under General Cuirriei. I will strongly support the position taken by my hon. friend from Renfrew South.


Hon. S. C. MEWBURN (Hamilton East) :: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the remarks particularly of the Minister of Militia (Mr. Guthrie) and I entirely concur in what he said regarding these Canadian citizens of Polish origin. This matter should go back a little further. In 1918, a very large number of Poles were residing in the United States of America. A request came to the Canadian Government, through the War Office of the Imperial Government, that we should arrange some camping ground in Canada and arrange to feed and train some of these Polish citizens of the United States, under an arrangement whereby it would be necessary for them to enlist in the American Expeditionary Force, but permission was given to them to proceed to Canada. A camp was established at Niagara-on-the-Lake with Polish instructors who came from the United States, who understood and spoke the Polish language. The Canadian Government acted purely and simply as agent of the British Government which had been requested by the French Government to carry this into effect. The Canadian Army Service Corps ran the camp. Col. Le Pau was in charge of the camp. I am speaking from memory, but I think that more than 20,000 Poles came from the United States and were trained at Niagara-on-the-Lake. These particular men that were referred to desired and requested that they be permitted to be trained with the Poles who were training at Niagara-on-the-Lake. I do not think any particular Polish battalion was sent overseas. These men were sent over in drafts to France and they received pay and allowances the same as the French soldiers. I do not think my hon. friend will find ^ome 20,000 American citizens of Polish origin, who were permitted to come over here and who did not serve in the American Expeditionary Force, are drawing pay and allowances from the American

Government. I would be the last one to deprive any Canadian citizen of whatever nationality he may be, of any gratuity and so forth that he should receive, but these men are in the same category as some 20,000 who came from the United States and went over to France.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Except that they are
Canadians.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Does my hon. friend
know that they are not being paid by the American Government?


Sydney Chilton Mewburn: I do not know definitely, but I doubt very much if they are.


Hume Cronyn: Mr. Speaker, as this is only a proposed amendment, may I say: this matter received the very fullest and most careful consideration by the committee. The committee was addressed by the hon. member for South Renfrew, and one of the members of the committee interested himself in the question. I do not think more could have been done to bring before us the main facts of the case. One other point is this. While these men are Canadian-born citizens, many thousands of other citizens of Canada-true it is that they may not all have been native-born citizens; some were; perhaps a majority were not-left to join the armies of France, Belgium, Italy-


Mr. NESBITT:: Russia.


Hume Cronyn: Russia, too. I remember that, two or three years ago when the Pension Committee was sitting in the museum building, the same question came before us, and the decision was that we could not extend to these men pension provisions or gratuities. It is true that we provided for pensions for certain of their dependents.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Widows.


Hume Cronyn: Widows. I understand
from the hon. member for Renfrew South (Mr. Pedlow)-I may be wrong-that these 200-odd Poles were unmarried; they did not leave widows. We have also provided for a certain amount of medical treatment for men from the armies named, but on the distinct understanding, an understanding which has, I believe, been carried out, that our expenditure in that respect will be repaid by the French and other Governments concerned. Once again, I say that the committee considered this matter and it would be quite useless to send it back for reconsideration.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Mr. Speaker, I want to add just a few words to what has already been said on this subject, which is of some importance. As the worthy chairman (Mr. Cronyn) has stated, the matter has been brought to the attention of the committee. I was unable to see eye to eye with the majority of the committee on this subject. I would like to impress upon the House a couple of propositions which should appeal, I think, to the majority of hon. members. First, the Poles referred to were, and are still, Canadian citizens. Second, they have served the common cause of the Allies during this war. And third, as to their quality, their bravery, and their devotion to the Allies' cause, we have the tribute which was paid to them by Professor Le Pan of the University of Toronto, if I mistake not.
I say that these men are Canadian citizens. What did we do as a Government in the case of the French reservists, the Belgian reservists, and the Italian reservists, who lived in Canada and joined the armies of their respective countries and returned to Canada after their discharge? As far as pensions are concerned, we treated them on the same footing as the members of the Canadian Expeditionary Force.


Hume Cronyn: I am quite sure that my hon. friend is mistaken in making that statement. I have under my hand a statement from the Pensions Board, on my inquiry, showing that Canada pays no pension to the disabled Belgian, French or Italian reservist who returned to Canada from overseas.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I may be mistaken as to a disability pension to the soldier himself, but there is a clause in the Act providing that the dependents of the French, the Belgium and the Italian reservists, and I think the reservist of any of the Allied armies, should receive a pension, if the soldier fell, on the same footing as the members of the Canadian Expeditionary Force.


Mr. COOPER:: No.


Henri Sévérin Béland: May I ask the hon.
member who says "no," what our Pension Act provides for the dependents of the Belgian, the French, and the Italian reservist? If it is not a pension for the dependents, is it a pension for the disabled soldier? Is it a war service gratuity that is provided? Or a bonus? Are they paid the same rate as the members of the Canadian Expeditionary Force? Possibly

not all of them, but as far as pensions are concerned their dependents are bn tjhe same footing as the members of the Canadian Expeditionary Force. In all common sense, how could the Act not apply to men who were regarded as Canadian citizens with the authority of the Militia Department? My hon. friend the present Minister of Militia (Mr. Guthrie), and my hon. friend the ex-Minister of Militia (Mr. Mewburn), have stated that they were so regarded with the authority of the Minister of Militia. It was on September 27, 1917, that an Order in Council was passed authorizing Americans to come in here and recruit for the Polish battalion, at the request of the American Ambassador in Washington, and, in turn, I believe at the request of the Imperial Government. There is not the slightest doubt in my mind that representations which we could not control have been made to these men, to the effect that if they enrolled and served with the Polish battalion they would be treated on the same footing as members of the Canadian Expeditionary Force.


John Wesley Edwards: Did they get the same pay?


Henri Sévérin Béland: No.


John Wesley Edwards: Then they could not have thought that they were to be treated the same as members of the Canadian Expeditionary Force.


Mr. ARTHURS:: There were certain
members of the Canadian Expeditionary Force, as stated by the hon. member for Renfrew (Mr. Pedlow), who left the Canadian Expeditionary Force to join the Polish battalion at Niagara. They stayed with that battalion for some days or weeks, and then raised the objection that their treatment was not what they expected, that their pay was not as high as that of the Canadian Expeditionary Force, and they were allowed to rejoin the Canadian Expeditionary Force. Consequently, the argument made that these men were to get the same treatment as the men of the Canadian Expeditionary Force has no foundation in fact.


Henri Sévérin Béland: They may not have been guaranteed the same rates officially. If that had been the case we would not have been pleading for them here to-day, because it would have been a matter of law. But to my mind it appears clear, at all events it is most probable that these men were left under the impression that they were to receive the same treatment as the men

of the Canadian Expeditionary Force, if not in all respects, certainly as regards the pension to their dependents if they should fall.


Mr. MORPHY:: Why did they not join
the Canadian Expeditionary Force?


Henri Sévérin Béland: That is a very proper
question, and I shall answer it. If my hon. friend,, who is an extremely reasonable man, had been placed in the position of the Poles, understanding the English language very imperfectly-


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I am informed that
that is not so, and I would like my hon. friend to take the responsibility for making that statement.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: I must remind the' hon. member that that is not a question.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I will answer the hon.
member's question as to why they did not enlist in the Canadian Expeditionary Force, if you have no objection, Mr. Speaker. I might say that my authority for the statement that the Poles were only imperfectly acquainted with the English language is the Minister of Militia, who so stated in this House only five minutes ago. It was because of that that they were allowed to join the Polish battalion. I would not claim for the Pole exactly the same treatment as was accorded to members of the Canadian Expeditionary Force, I might not go as far as my hon. friend from Renfrew (Mr. Pedlow) ; but I do think that this country owes it to itself to care for the widows and dependent children of these men who fell in the war. Is it generally known that these men were paid at the rate of 5 cents a day while they served in the Polish Army? I think in all fairness we should give these men the benefit of the doubt. I am animated by a desire only to do justice to these men, not to give them favoured treatment at all. Let me read the clause in the Bill. By section 26 of chapter 62, an Act to amend the Pension Act, a new section-section 47 of that law is enacted. This new section reads:
"When a person of the rank of Warrant Officer or of a hig*her rank in any of His Majesty's naval, military or air forces other than the naval, military, or air forces of Canada or when a person in the naval, military or air forces of one of His Majesty's Allies who was domiciled and resident in Canada at the beginning of the war has died during the war or thereafter as the result of a disability incurred during the war or demobilization and his widowed mother, widow or children have been awarded a smaller pension than they would have been entitled to under this Act in respect of his death, such

widowed mother, widow or children shall be entitled, during the continuance of their residence in Canada, to such additional pension as will make the total of the two pensions received by them equal to the pension that would have been awarded if the person aforesaid had died in the military service of Canada.
That is absolutely plain; it applies to everyone. But I believe that the Poles are treated differently from the other members of the Allied armies, and I have in mind particularly the French, the Belgian and the Italian. All I ask is that the Poles be treated the same as the others, always taking into consideration that they are Canadian citizens.


James Arthurs: The last speaker seems to be under a misapprehension as to what the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Pedlow), has stated. In the case of those men to whom he refers, who died overseas on active service, the widows, children, and other dependents, are treated in the same way as the men who had gone as reservists to France or even in the British army. This is the law at the present time. What the hon. member for Renfrew asks is that we make up their pay, allowances and gratuity to the standard of the Canadian Expeditionary Force. We have not done that with the French reservists or thousands of Italians who joined the Canadian Expeditionary Force and who were afterwards called by their own governments. Many hundreds of them volunteered in the Canadian Expeditionary Force and were later called by their countries. We do not make up their pay; they get the Italian pay. If any of them were killed in action, however, we take care of their widows and children living in Canada, and we would do exactly the same in the case of Poles. As a matter of fact, I do not think that the American Government has done anything for the Polish Legion which enlisted there, and of which these men to whom the hon. member for Renfrew refers were a small part.


Ernest Lapointe: Would their Government do anything if they were disabled?


James Arthurs: I presume the Polish Government pays them. This Polish Legion comprised 22,000 men enlisted entirely in the United States, with the exception of the 200-odd mentioned by the hon. member for Renfrew. They went under the auspices of the French government, and get a bonus of $150 per year from that government. So far as the committee is concerned, I think its position is eminently justifiable; it has treated all alike.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: In the session of 1918, I think, a strong attack was made upon the Pensions Committee of that year, and it was urged that we should recognize the Russian, the Italian, the French, the Belgian, and other reservists who were called to the colours; and we did go so far in 1919 as to supplement the pension to the widows and orphans of such of these reservists as were killed overseas. That is to say the pensions they were drawing were not equal to the pensions of the widows and orphans of the men of the Canadian Expeditionary Force, and we made recommendation that they should be supplemented to equalize them with the Canadian pension because these people were residents of Canada. It was distinctly stated that the reservists who were killed and for whom we were doing this must have been residents of Canada before the war and must be resident and domiciled in Canada at the time the recommendations were made. My hon. friend from Beauce (Mr. Beland), emphasized the fact that these men mentioned by the hon. member for Renfrew were Canadians. These reservists were also Canadian, and were forced to go whether they wanted to or not. They went from Canada and came back to Canada, and were equally Canadians as the men born in Canada, so far as citizenship is concerned. They were forced to go, and therefore I think we were in duty bound to consider them even to a greater extent than the men who, my hon. friend from Beauce says, were Canadians. You cannot tell me that if they were born in Canada they did not understand the English language. Of those who went to Niagara, and whose cause the hon. member for South Renfrew is advocating, the younger men at least must have understood English if they were born in Canada and were educated in our public schools. These men knew what they were doing. They made their choice, and I have not the same sympathy with them that I have with the reservists who were forced to go to the colours. The reservists were Canadian citizens. If we did as the hon. member for Renfrew suggests, the Russian, Italian, and French reservists who went to the front, and who did not get the same pay as our men, would have an equal claim on us and would soon be after us, and we could not deny them. I think, therefore, that we are wasting our sympathy this afternoon. Furthermore, the matter was thoroughly considered in the committee. We gave the member for Renfrew every



[Stage Direction]
opportunity to bring the matter properly before us, and my hon. friend from Beauce, who was a most popular member of the committee, certainly did his best for them. If he could not do anything for them, I do not believe any one else could.
Mr. THOMAS VIEN (Lotbiniere) :: I
am sorry I cannot see eye to eye with the hon. member (Mr. Nesbitt), who has just spoken. He says that these soldiers, for whom we are asking the sympathy of the House, do not appeal to him as much as the reservists of other countries who were forced to go to the front. I do not see how the hon. gentleman discriminates in his sympathy between those who were forced to go, and those who voluntarily enlisted. I always thought he was more sympathetic to those who voluntarily enlisted than to those who were compelled to join the forces. Leaving that aside, however, there is another consideration I wish to bring before the House, and which I think should receive some consideration in regard to those men on behalf of whom the hon. member for Renfrew has just made a motion. In the case of reservists of European countries, the soldiers who went back to their countries and enlisted in their national armies are provided for by the various governments for whom they served. These Polish soldiers who enlisted in this special voluntary Polish regiment are not looked after by the Polish Republic. If they are disabled, they do not receive any compensation or pension from the country of which they are nationals. There is a great distinction between a reservist who goes back to serve in his country, who cannot enlist in the Canadian Expeditionary Force because he is under orders from his own country to report there, and a Canadian-born citizen who is not forced to enlist and yet voluntarily enlists in a regiment which is specially organized for those of his own nationality. The Government of Canada allowed the French Government to come here and to organize a Polish regiment. If they had been recruited from among the Polish reservists I would grant immediately the argument I heard this afternoon from hon. gentlemen opposite, that they are on the same footing as reservists from all other countries. But this is not the case. They are not Polish reservists; they ai;e Canadian-born citizens who were induced to enlist by the fact that the French Government organized a Polish regiment in Canada. It seems to me, therefore, that

there should be no difference between these men and those who enlisted voluntarily in the Canadian Expeditionary Force.	The
hon. member for North Perth (Mr. Morphy) put a very reasonable question when he asked, "Why did they not enlist in the Canadian Expeditionary Force?" The answer to this question, I think, will throw some light on the subject. In the first place, if they had enlisted in the Canadian Expeditionary Force, the hon. gentleman who asked that question would concede, they would be entitled to a pension and, of course, they should be so entitled. But why did they not enlist in that force? It was because a Polish regiment was being organized in Canada, and they enlisted in it notwithstanding the fact that they were Canadian-born citizens who understood the English language. A question of sentiment is involved there which is only human and which everybody will understand. For example, when a French Canadian regiment was organized in the province of Quebec, French Canadians were induced to enlist in that regiment much more readily than they would have enlisted in any other organization. Therefore when a Polish regiment was raised in Canada it was only natural that the Canadian-born citizen of Polish descent should enlist in that regiment rather than in the Canadian Expeditionary Force. They were commanded by a Polish officer, and in France they were brigaded under a Polish general; and I believe that being Canadian-born citizens they should not be deprived, merely because they enlisted in the Polish regiment organized in this country, of the other advantages which the law provided for the Canadian-born citizen.


Mr. McGIBBON (Muskoka) :: Why did they wait from 1914 until 1918 to join that Polish regiment?


Thomas Vien: Well, the hon. gentleman cannot blame any Canadian citizen for taking advantage of the law and exercising his judgment as to the proper time to enlist. This question has been already threshed out in this House and in the country. As long as the law of the land gave a Canadian citizen the right to enlist or not it was a matter subject to his own judgment or discretion.


Rodolphe Lemieux: And besides, they were not of age.


Thomas Vien: As to that I do not know. We have the cards of some of them which

show that before 1918 they were not of age and consequently they had to wait until that time arrived before enlisting.


Mr. CURRIE:: Just one of them.


Thomas Vien: But in any case they objected to being commanded by any other officer than their own national.


John Allister Currie: What country did they swear allegiance to when they joined?


Thomas Vien: That question is irrelevant and I do not think I should be called upon to answer it; it would raise very intricate and very far-reaching issues. The point I wish to bring to the attention of the House ' is this: They are Canadian citizens, they are Canadian born, they did not enlist until 1918-some of them because they were not of age, and others because they objected to being commanded by anybody but their own commander. But as soon as a Polish regiment was organized they enlisted in it, and if the Canadian Government had taken the initiative of organizing a Polish regiment in this country they would just as readily have enlisted in that regiment within the Canadian Expeditionary Force, as they did in a regiment under the French Government. I do not believe that Canadian-born citizens of Polish origin who voluntarily enlisted in that Polish regiment should be treated differently from Canadian citizens who enlisted in the Canadian Expeditionary Force. Considering the reservists of other nationalities who went back because they were subject to the laws of their own countries I say there is a clean distinction to be made between their case and that of these men. In the former case the country to which those reservists returned and in whose regiments they enlisted, provided for them if they were disabled. In the case of these Canadian-born citizens of Polish origin, however, no country but Canada can provide for them if they were disabled in the war. It is therefore only just and fair that we should extend to these men the same benefits as are enjoyed by Canadian citizens who enlisted in the Canadian Expeditionary Force.


Mr. CLARK (Red Deer) :: now working, and who heard the first blast of the trumpet that called them to the fields of France. I must say that I have a little sentiment along that line as well. On general principles we need to be most careful of our means at the present time, and I think as few citizens as reasonably possible should be encouraged to do that which in the old British proverb is called, Begging from those who are ready to steal. If I were a Pole, and at the present moment in Poland, and the
4 p.m. choice were offered me to stay there with a fair livelihood or go to Canada with an old shirt, I should immediately ask for the shirt. I do not think these men are to be commiserated too much if they got back to Canada at all, -I think any man who gets back from almost any portion of Europe at the present moment is very well off to find himself in Canada. Of course, that is no argument why we should not discharge all just claims, but I cannot see why in this particular case the claim stands any fair interpretation of the word "justice." As I said, it is a difficult question, Mr. Speaker, but I for one feel inclined to support the committee, and I shall do so.


Thomas Vien: Does my hon. friend remember that we are talking of Canadian-born citizens when he says that it would not be too much of a misfortune if they had been left overseas?


Michael Clark: My hon. friend is utterly wrong. I never said anything about the misfortune of being left overseas. I said I should consider myself more fortunate to be in Canada, and that it would be a misfortune to me to be left overseas, especially if in the neighbourhood of Poland. My hon. friend did not understand what I said.


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, I desire to give an intelligent vote -if I can do so-and therefore I want the explanation necessary to that end. We have been told that as far as pensions are concerned these men are treated exactly like Canadian soldiers.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Ernest Lapointe: I want to know if that is so.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.
Mr. LAPOINTE [DOT] Then I say they should be treated like Canadian soldiers.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Ernest Lapointe: I do not see why this matter is so laughable when we are talking of men who went to serve their country and the Allied cause and did their duty.


John Allister Currie: Does not my hon. friend-
Mr. LAPOINTE [DOT] The smiles and laughter of my hon. friend from North Simcoe (Mr. Currie) are absolutely out of place.
If we cannot give those men anything else, at least let us give them respect.


John Allister Currie: Does not the hon. gentleman know that it is not pensions that are asked for on behalf of these men, but the same pay and allowances as our Canadian , soldiers received?


Ernest Lapointe: I asked my hon. friend from South Renfrew (Mr. Pedlow) and he says *that these men should be given the same pensions as those granted to Canadian soldiers.


John Allister Currie: No, pay and allowances.


Ernest Lapointe: He must know what he is after in moving this amendment.


Richard Clive Cooper: The recommendation is
right there.


Ernest Lapointe: Will you permit me
to state my own case? My hon. friend from North Simcoe is the man who knows it all in this House, we are aware of that, but I will ask his indulgence and that of the House for a short time while I state my views. These men were Canadian citizens; nobody denies that; they were not reservists of any other country. The fact that they were subject to the Military Service Act, as was stated by the Minister of Militia (Mr. Guthrie), is no argument against their claim, for they would have been compelled to serve in the Canadian army if they had not been allowed by this country to volunteer for service in the Polish army, Authority was given to raise that regiment, the men who enlisted did so with the full consent of the Canadian authorities, and, as I have stated, the fact that they were subject to the Military Service Act has no bearing on their case at all. Indeed, if they had been conscripts they would be entitled to full pension, for there is not one law for volunteers and another law for conscripts.
Another argument is that they were not paid the same rate, as soldiers in the Polish army, that they would have been paid as Canadian soldiers. But they deserve all the more credit. If they were taking the same chances, enduring the same sufferings, and were paid less money, is that a reason

why they should not be entitled to pensions >
when they come under the provisions of our Act? Surely this is no argument against their claim.
My hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark) asks:	Where will the money come
from? It will come from the same source as the money that will be paid to the other soldiers, it will come from special taxes paid by the relatives of these men, Canadian citizens, just the same as by the relatives of all the other Canadian soldiers. There is no good reason why these men should be accorded different treatment from that accorded to our other soldiers. And surely, if we do not give them anything in the way of pensions, at least let us give them some respect and not laugh at them in their misfortune.


Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Shelburne and Queen's) :: Mr. Speaker, I think it is a
misfortune that the House is called upon this afternoon to decide in a very hurried manner a question which seems to be regarded, and justly so, as one of considerable importance. It appears that a number of hon. members are already familiar with this question, having had it before them in one form or another, but to the majority of the House, as to myself, the matter comes up in a hurried way and entirely new. Probably if I had had as much opportunity to study it as has my hon. friend from South Renfrew, I would reach the same conclusion as he has reached. Unfortunately there is a conflict of fact to-day in the House as to what we are doing for the various classes of reservists of foreign nations. I would, not wish the Polish soldiers to be treated in any different way from the French, Belgian or any other body of reservists, who returned from Canada at the outbreak of the war.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Will my hon. friend
allow me? These men on whose behalf I am appealing are not reservists, they are Canadian-born citizens.


William Stevens Fielding: Still it is explained
that - although (they were Canadian-born citizens, they, for their own good and patriotic reasons no doubt, preferred not to enlist in the Canadian army. I do not dwell on that point. But there is this conflict not only of opinion but of fact. Now, if we had abundance of time to take this matter up again I do not know what conclusion I might reach, But the chairman of the committee has informed us that they had the matter before them. I have such profound respect for the work of that committee, and especially for the great work that has been done by my hon. friend from London (Mr. Cronyn), that when he tells me that the committee have given this matter all due consideration, knowing as I do that they could have no desire but to do what was right, I see no reason why I should not support the chairman's report.


John Wesley Edwards: Apparently the discussion has departed from the request made by the member for South Renfrew (Mr. Pedlow) which was that members of a Polish regiment, Canadian-born citizens, be granted the difference between Canadian rates of pay and allowances and the rates which they received on service overseas in the armies of Allied countries. The discussion has wandered far afield; matters affecting pensions, gratuities and so on have been taken up which have nothing to do with what the hon. member is asking. I submit that if this report is sent back to the committee with instructions to make the amendment suggested, it will carry with it the obligation on the part of the committee to give the same consideration to Frenchmen, Belgians and Italians who went overseas and served at a lower rate of pay than that given to members of the Canadian Expeditionary Force.
Amendment (Mr. Pedlow) negatived, and main motion (Mr. Cronyn) agreed to.



JUDGES ACT AMENDMENT

Right Hon. C. J. DOHERTY (Minister of Justice) moved:: That Messrs. Guthrie, McKenzie, Redman, Lapointe and Doherty be appointed managers on behalf of this House of the free conference with the Senate with respect to the amendments made to Bill No. 60, intituled "An Act to amend the Judges Act," and that a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their Honours therewith.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. C. J. DOHERTY (Minister of Justice) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 219, with regard to certain proceedings under Part IV of the Canada Temperance Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this Bill was explained the other day when I asked for the consent of the House to introduce it without notice, and it is perhaps unnecessary for me to go over what was then said. I would add, however, that the purpose of the Bill is not in any way to invade the proper field of the courts, which is the in-
[Stage Direction]
terpretation of the existing law and the determination of its effect, the purpose of the Bill is to modify the existing law so as to obviate the possible unfortunate consequences involved in a repetition or renewal of the plebiscites that have been held. On inquiry from the Auditor General I find that about half a million dollars has been paid in connection with those plebiscites, and at that, all the bills have not yet been paid. I mention this to show the gravity of the consequences that are sought to be avoided. I think it should be made clear also that in proposing this legislation it is not to be understood that we are acting because of any change of view on the part of the law officers who advised the drawing of the proclamation as it was drawn. They then were of opinion that it was sufficient, and they are still of that opinion. In that connection I propose to lay on the table of the House for the information of members a copy of the considered opinion of the Deputy Minister of Justice on the subject.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Rodolphe Lemieux: May I inquire again whether we may expect the Snider report to be brought down before the close of the session?


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: My hon. friend knows the answer that was given yesterday by the Prime Minister, that he would ascertain whether it could be brought down, if possible, immediately. That is all I know.



OPIUM AND NARCOTIC DRUG ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. J. A. Calder (Minister of Health), the amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 81, to amend the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act, were concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. J. A. Calder (Minister of Immigration and Colonization), Bill No. 212 (from the Senate) to amend the Dominion Lands Act, was read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 1-confirmation of appointments before May 24, 1918, by the minister

of certain officers to administer the Dominion Lands Act.
Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: This section, as it reads, looks as if the minister had been making a number of appointments in violation of the Civil Service Act, and that he is now trying to legalize this.


Mr. CALDER:: That is exactly what has happened. This Bill is necessary for that purpose. It would appear that between the years 1908 and 1918, that is the date of the present Civil Service Act, the Minister of the Interior had power, through the Governor in Council, of course, to make all appointments in the Outside Service, for the administration of the Dominion Lands Act. We find that, in the case of a number of the appointments made, the appointees reside at Ottawa, and as a matter of fact, such appointments should have been made through the Civil Service Commission. The practice started, I am told, in 1908; it has continued down to 1918, and I think some 260 officials are involved. In working out the administration of the present Civil Service Act, a condition has arisen which makes it practically impossible for the Civil Service Commission to function as regards these appointments, and I understand the Auditor General as well objects to continue paying salaries unless what was done illegally in those days is legalized. That is the purpose of this legislation. Many of these people who have been thus appointed have been in the service a long time, and unless this measure goes through and these appointments are legalized, I scarcely know what can be done with them.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: They are all partisan appointments, I suppose.


James Alexander Calder: Under both Governments.


George Green Foster: They are not
new appointments.


Thomas Vien: Can the minister explain
how this could occur, that the minister could override legislation which was enacted for the appointment of these officials by the Civil Service Commission?


James Alexander Calder: It was a practice that
grew up, not only in one department, but in several departments. The practice was adopted of making certain appointments to the Outside Service and paying them out of general votes instead of Civil Government votes.


Thomas Vien: Are they temporary or permanent employees?


James Alexander Calder: Some would be temporary and some permanent.


Thomas Vien: In the Outside Service.


James Alexander Calder: Yes.


Thomas Vien: All of them?


James Alexander Calder: They were all supposed
to have been appointed in the Outside Service, but they are all here at Ottawa.


Thomas Vien: How could that be?


James Alexander Calder: I do not know. It simply is so.


Thomas Vien: The minister says that these were supposed to be in the Outside Service. Could the minister tell us the character of the duties of these officers? Could he give at least some instances how employees of that department in Ottawa could be classed as employees in the Outside Service?


James Alexander Calder: I would imagine you
could have a case like this. They would take the general vote, for example, for looking after forestry in the Interior Department, and they would appoint some person and pay his salary out of that general vote, but he would do his work in Ottawa instead of doing it in the field somewhere. The same thing would apply as regard irrigation work. I grant that these appointments should all have been made in the Inside Service, because the work in most cases has been in Ottawa. Under the Civil Service Act of 1908, they should have been appointed through the Civil Service Commission; but as I have intimated, in several departments of Government, many appointments have been made by both Governments contrary to the true intent and spirit of that Act. It is for the purpose of clearing up that situation that this Bill is introduced.


Thomas Vien: No one has been appointed
since May 24, 1918?


James Alexander Calder: None since the Civil
Service Act of 1918 was assented to.


William Stevens Fielding: If appointments 'of
that nature were made under the Liberal 'Government of years ago, has it taken my hon. friend all these years to find this out and to make the correction?


James Alexander Calder: It is only recently that the Civil Service Commission and the Auditor General drew the attention of fhe department to the fact that these appointments made prior to 1918 must be legalized and made regular, otherwise they could not deal with them under the provisions of the Civil Service Act.


William Stevens Fielding: But in the meantime, the men have been receiving their pay. That is the most vital point. They have not been all these years without their money.


James Alexander Calder: That is quite true, but it is only recently that the Civil Service Commission and the Auditor General have notified the department that these appointments must be legalized.


William Stevens Fielding: There surely cannot be any trouble about the old appointments. The appointees have been there for years; they have been drawing their salaries; they are growing old and venerable. Their appointments do not need to be legalized.


James Alexander Calder: I am stating simply what has been told to me.


Thomas Vien: What is the particular provision of section 79 of the Dominion Lands Act, chapter 20 of the statutes of 1908, which is proposed to be repealed?


James Alexander Calder: The old section 79 reads, as it appears in the 1908 statutes:
The minister shall have the administration and management of all lands of the Dominion to which this Act applies, including school lands ; and he may appoint such officers as are required for the purposes of such administration and management and whose appointment is not provided for by the Civil Service Act or by paragraph (h) of section 76 of this Act, and may define their duties.
Under the Civil Service Act of 1918, we have taken away from the minister all appointments, so that it is not necessary that that portion of the old section should stand.


Thomas Vien: But there is something more. I should like the minister bo be candid enough to give the information. Under the existing statute, the minister is of opinion, advised as he is by his officials, that appointments were wrongly made-at least there is a serious doubt as to the legality of the appointments of these officers; in the opinion of his officials these appointments should not have been made by the minister himself; they should have been made by the Civil Service Commission. Section 79 of the present statute says that the minister may appoint officers whose appointment is not provided for by the Civil Service Commission. Now we repeal this entirely, and the

effect of this legislation will be to give to the minister exclusive jurisdiction in the appointment of officers.


James Alexander Calder: No.


Thomas Vien: It is as clear as daylight to any lawyer, and I am sure the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) will bear me out in this respect. Under the old Act you made an exception; you could not appoint such officials as were under the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission; you do not repeat the same proviso in this statute ,and the effect of the new statute will be, in the first place, to legalize the appointments made by the minister instead of by the Civil Service Commission, and secondly, to remove from the Civil Service Commission all appointments in the department.


James Alexander Calder: It certainly cannot have that effect, because under the Civil Service Act of 1918 the whole Outside Service and all employees of the Government were brought under the jurisdiction of the commission. My hon. friend will find that in many of the statutes relating to departmental work, power was given to the minister of the department to make certain appointments, but all that has since been done away with, and the entire Civil Service, both inside and outside, has been brought under the jurisdiction of the commission. So repealing these words will not restore to the minister the right to make appointments.


William Stevens Fielding: If the members of the Government in this, as in so many other matters, have made a few blunders and have to come to Parliament to correct them, I have every desire to assist my hon. friend in making the correction, but when he undertakes to say that appointments were made irregularly by former governments my curiosity is aroused, and I want to know what has happened in all these years to enable appointments that were made irregularly ten years ago to be covered up. The Auditor General cannot just have awakened to the fact that these men have been getting money illegally during all these years. My hon. friend had better say that the blunders have been made in recent years, and not try to camouflage the situation. He must not imagine things-the Speaker will not allow it. Let him say frankly that the appointments were made irregularly by this Government.	'


James Alexander Calder: I am quite willing to leave the Bill in committees but I think I
!Mr. Vien.]
could show my hon. friend that appointments of this class were made in the years 1908, 1909 and 1910, and that the first sinners in this respect were not the Administration that came -into power in 1911.


William Stevens Fielding: How is it that the Auditor General is only now objecting to paying these men?


James Alexander Calder: On account of certain provisions in the Civil Service Act, the Auditor General recently, and only recently, has notified the departments concerned, and so has the commission. How it was discovered, or by whom I do not know, but I do know that both the commission and the Auditor General have insisted that these appointments which were irregularly made should be legalized. Otherwise, these civil servants will be left in a very awkward position, as regards promotions, increases of salary, and matters of that kind.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend says that these troubles have arisen on account of something in the recent Civil Service Act, not on account of something that happened years ago. Therefore, he ought not to say that it is because of appointments that were made many years ago when another government was in power. He is simply trying to camouflage the matter by talking of appointments made by governments of former years. These are errors that have been made by him or by his friends, and he need not try to get behind another government. The Auditor General is too faithful an official to go on for years paying men irregularly, and too sensible an official to expect the men to repay the money at this late date.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It would save time if the hon. minister would plead guilty, and we will simply say: Go in peace, and sin no more.


James Alexander Calder: I will not say that. I am not trying to camouflage the situation in any sense at all. It is only recently that the Auditor General and the Civil Service Commission have insisted that this state of affairs shall be put an end to. When the Auditor General in 1908, 1909, 1910, 1911, and 1912 paid the salaries of these men, I do not know; that is for him to say. There is no question at all in my judgment that these appointments were made irregularly, and that the matter has gone on for a period of years. I understand that the Civil Service Commission will not deal with these men as with other

civil servants, under the present Civil Service Act, so far as promotions, increases of salaries, and things of that kind are concerned, and they have asked that a Bill be submitted to Parliament to rectify the irregularities. I may say, further, that many phases of the work in connection with the Civil Service have only recently been got at. We threw a huge volume of work on the Civil Service Commission by the Act of 1918, and there are some phases of their work that have not yet been grappled with. It is only recently that the request has been made that these appointments that were made irregularly should be legalized. I can assure my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) that appointments of this class were made prior to 1911 and after 1911, and it seems to me that the only thing for us to do is to legalize them.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend says that there is no question that some of these appointments were made irregularly in 1908, 1909, and 1910. I am obliged to dissent from that. He has given us no evidence that anything of the kind took place in those years, and I am bound to think that he is mistaken. In all these years we have had a very capable Auditor General. I am not sure of the date of the death of the late John McDougall or the late Mr. Fraser, but both of them were very able, vigorous, and capable officials, and neither of them would have permitted us to make irregular appointments of these officials. The fact that no exception was taken to the appointments that were made in former years is presumptive evidence that they were made regularly, and when my hon. friend says there is no question that they were made improperly, that is not camouflage; it is worse.


James Alexander Calder: I am not going to delay the committee. I move that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Do not do that.


James Alexander Calder: I can see no other course open when the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's says that there is no possibility of any of these appointments having been made prior to 1911, which is in direct contradiction of the statement I have made.


William Stevens Fielding: I did not say the appointments were not made. I said that there was no evidence that the appointments were made irregularly or illegally. I take it for granted that the appointments were made, but they must have been made regularly and legally, or the Auditor General would not have paid the salaries without question. I have no objection to the Bill.
Motion withdrawn.


Thomas Vien: Does the minister know of similar cases in other departments, or is the Dominion lands the only branch concerned?


James Alexander Calder: I do not know as to
other departments.


Mr. SINCLAIR (Guysborough) :: How many of these appointments were made prior to 1911? I will not ask the minister to give the names of the men appointed, but he might identify them by giving their class.


James Alexander Calder: I have not that information before me.


Thomas Vien: How many employees, all told, were so appointed?


James Alexander Calder: All told, 260.


Thomas Vien: How many prior to 1911? Mr. CALDER: I have not the figures.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: How many of these were permanent officers?


James Alexander Calder: I have not the information. I think, after all, we understand the situation. It has been suggested to me by the deputy minister to strike out all the words after "Ottawa" in the 15th line, as he did not know what the results would be if these words were left in. He thinks it far better, and I agree with him, merely to confirm the appointments, and then let the law take its course. The words it is proposed to strike out are: and the officers so appointed shall he deemed to he permanent or temporary officers of the Civil Service according to the nature and intent of the appointment in each case.
To leave these words in, might lead to further complications. I therefore move to strike them out.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Thomas Vien: Have complaints been received by the Government from the Auditor General in regard to appointments of a similar character made in other departments?


James Alexander Calder: I cannot say.


Thomas Vien: Can any member of the Government now present tell us? There should be some one who is informed on the subject.


George Green Foster: I have had no complaints.


Thomas Vien: That is to say, no complaints were received from the Auditor General except in respect of this particular department.


George Green Foster: I do not say that; I am speaking of my own department.


James Alexander Calder: If appointments of this nature had occurred in other departments, we should have had a Bill to correct them. As no request has been made in that direction, we may assume that no such appointments have been made.


Mr. McKENZIE:: It would save time if the minister would state what the law was formerly, and wherein we have committed a breach.


James Alexander Calder: In the 1908 Act, the service was divided into two parts, Inside and Outside. The salaries of the Outside Service all appeared in the Civil Government votes, and all persons appointed to the Inside Service were appointed on the recommendation, or certificate, I am not sure which, of the Civil Service Commission. In the case of the Outside Service in the Interior Department, the minister had power to make appointments. During the years between 1908 and 1918, the minister made certain appointments, some of the appointees being placed at Ottawa, and they draw their salaries out of the Outside votes-the general votes-instead of out of the Civil Government vote. Now, when they were appointed to be at Ottawa and to do the work here, they should have been appointed to the Inside Service upon the recommendation or the certification of the commission. Instead of that they were appointed directly by the minister and their salaries were paid out of the general votes, and not out of the Civil Government vote, although they were located in the Inside Service.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: How does it come about that this Bill originated in the Senate?


James Alexander Calder: The matter comes under the department of Sir James Lougheed, the leader of the Senate.


John Howard Sinclair: Will
this Bill make temporary appointments permanent?


James Alexander Calder: No.
fMr. Vien.]


John Howard Sinclair: I would point out to the minister the large number of temporary employees whom we have. In the schedule to the Spinney Bill, I see that in the year 1918-19, 25 temporary employees were appointed; in the year 191920, 36; and in the year 1920-21, 171. I am surprised to see so many temporary appointments; they largely exceed the permanent appointments. Why is it necessary to have so many temporary employees?


James Alexander Calder: It depends on the work done in any particular department; in any rush period it is necessary to have temporary employees. The question depends on the strength of the permanent staff, and the volume of work to be attended to.


John Howard Sinclair: I have always heard that stated with regard to the Post Office; but the secretary of the Civil Service Commission told us the other day that there was so much overcrowding in the Post Office Department, as well as in. the Customs, that when they were through culling out the unnecessary employees, it was hoped to save $2,000,000 a year in wages. If there is overcrowding in these two departments, why should it be necessary to appoint so many temporary employees?


Mr. SINCLAIR (Queen's) :: In those
cases where appointees were entitled to an increase of salary as from April 1, 1919, have they been receiving such increases, or has the matter been questioned in any instance?


James Alexander Calder: They have all received their salaries.


John Ewen Sinclair: Have civil servants in every instance been given the increase, to which they were entitled under the reclassification to commence at April 1, 1919?


James Alexander Calder: I cannot say whether in every case the increase has been received.


John Ewen Sinclair: If the matter has been questioned in any instance, will this Bill' entitle sudh civil servants to the pay they would have received from April 1, 1919, under the reclassification?


James Alexander Calder: The whole question of
classification, salaries, increases, promotions, etc., is involved in the Bill now under consideration. Until these appointments are legalized, the Civil Service Commission refuses to deal with them; and in addition to that, I understand, the Auditor General

takes the ground that he will not continue to pay salaries to these employees. That is the position as reported to me.


Thomas Vien: When was the question first raised?


James Alexander Calder: I cannot say, but I understand it is only in recent weeks.


John Ewen Sinclair: I have had some representations from officials in the Civil Service whose appointments date back to 1914 and 1915. They believed that their appointments were permanent and so accepted them, but when the reclassification was made the increases it provided were refused them because the appointments were made by the minister, who, it is said, had no power under the statute to make permanent employments. Being simply ministerial appointments, they were considered only temporary. I am referring to persons who work in the Department of Agriculture, Live Stock Branch. The minister will agree with me, I think, that when we blanket in those who are under the Interior Department, we should extend the same privilege to officials in other departments.


James Alexander Calder: Where does the official
live, to whom the hon. member refers?


John Ewen Sinclair: I am speaking of different officials. One lives in Winnipeg, working in the markets division, and another in Moncton, in the Live Stock Branch. I am informed that they are creditable officials who do good work, and they did not know that their appointments were only temporary under the law until the point was raised by the Civil Service Commission. I submit to the minister that in all fairness we should give them some consideration when we are considering those in the Interior Department.


James Alexander Calder: The question raised by
the hon. member is an entirely different one from that now under consideration, and it might very well be considered when the Civil Service Amendment Bill is before the House. It is not on all-fours with this. These appointments we are now considering are Outside; they belong to the Outside Service, but the officials are at Ottawa.


John Ewen Sinclair: They belong to the Outside Service wholly?


James Alexander Calder: Yes. Those whom we
are considering now belong to the Outside Service, but live in Ottawa.


Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax) :: Has the
Civil Service Commission represented to the minister that this legislation is necessary?


James Alexander Calder: Apparently hon. gentlemen are not satisfied, so I will read the memorandum that has been placed in my hands by the Deputy Minister of the Department of the Interior:
This amendement is to clear up the status of a number of employees appointed at Ottawa between September, 1908, and the 24th May, 1918. During this period the minister had the power to make appointments to our Outside Service and there is no doubt as to the status of those who were engaged at points outside of Ottawa. However, some were put on at Ottawa for -the performance of work which it was contemplated would he transferred elsewhere and technically, these might be held to have been improperly appointed, although as a matter of fact, they have been paid their salaries for years and are now occupying positions that have been classified after investigation by the Civil Service Commission as part of our permanent organization.
There are about two hundred and sixty-six employees of the category above mentioned appointed to Dominion Lands Service, and to other services of the department directly connected with the same, and the above clause, as amended will legalize their appointments so that they may be deemled to have been appointed permanently to the Civil Service from the date of their assignment to their respective positions in the Department of the Interior.
Now it appears that the question of the position of these employees in the Department of the Interior was referred to the Department of Justice, and Mr. New-combe, Deputy Minister of the Department of Justice gave this opinion:
If th-e employees in question were engaged to fill positions on your departmental staff at Ottawa, then I am of the opinion, speaking generally, that -these positions were within the ''inside service", as defined by Section 3 of the Civil Service Amendment Act, 1908 and the incumbents can be regarded as permanent only if they were appointed in accordance with the provisions of the said amendment Act.
They were not appointed in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1908, and consequently they cannot he regarded as permanent employees. Now, I have been advised that the auditor-I was speaking to Mr. Cory about it yesterday-has taken the ground that these appointments should be made regular.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I think the minister is entitled to this legislation and probably has given reasons for it. However, I hope that wtien the Bill gets through committee the third reading will not be proceeded with until Monday so that one may be enabled in the meantime to make some inquiry about it.


Mr. COPP:: I understood the minister to say that the purpose of this Bill is simply to legalize the appointment of about two hundred and sixty men in the Department of the Interior, but that it does not affect appointments which will hereafter be made by the Civil Service Commission. Is that correct?


James Alexander Calder: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported.

Right Hon.   S@: May I be allowed to state, in further reply to a question put to the Prime Minister as to legislation that may yet be brought down, that his reply as given must be taken to include any legislation that is made necessary by the report that has been laid before the House this afternoon by the member for London, (Mr. Cronyn) and that whatever legislation is required in that respect will be brought in on Monday.



BANKRUPTCY BILL-SENATE AMENDMENTS

Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have the honour to inform the House that I have received a message from the Senate informing this House that by mistake, there is included among the amendments made by the Senate to the Bill 118, intituled: "An Act to Amend the Bankruptcy Act," which amendments were sent to the House of Commons for concurrence, an amendment adding a Clause 5A to the said Bill, being the first of the said amendments, and requesting that the House of Commons will give leave to the proper officer of the Senate to make the necessary correction by striking out the said amendment.



SUPPLY-BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. Sir GEORGE FOSTER (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved that the House go again into Committee of Supply.
William Stevens Fielding: Before you leave the Chair, Mr. Speaker, I desire to say a very few words concerning the order of business leading up to prorogation. For a week past, or more, we have had in that portion of the press which generally receives its inspiration from the Government, announcements of an

almost immediate prorogation. I think, in fact, the first announcement was that it was fixed for to-day, and it was also announced that an agreement had been come to between the various parties in the House to facilitate such prorogation. I believe I am correct in stating there was no such agreement in particular. Far from desiring to delay the proceedings of the House, I sympathize with the desire of the Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) to bring the proceedings of Parliament to an early close and I shall willingly aid him in that direction. At the same time, I think it would be a mistake to hasten the prorogation of this House in the manner that has been implied in these various announcements. I would think it is to be regretted if my right hon. friend were to insist upon having prorogation before his departure; but that, of course, is for him to say, not me. I do say, however, that it will not be seemly if the business of this House is rushed to a conclusion in the manner in which it has been in former years and by all governments-for I do not blame one more than another. Consideration of the departmental Estimates is the best opportunity, in fact the only opportunity, for the discussion of some branches of our public business. Now, we have had some discussion of the Estimates, but I think the Estimates of some departments-perhaps not more than one or two-we have not touched at all, and it is not too much to say that at this moment votes for hundreds of millions of money that have yet to be dealt with. Consequently, when we are asked, in the last hours of the session, to rush these things through without consideration, it is an unseemly business and one that is not creditable to Parliament. I do not wish to say any more than to urge my hon. friends not to ask for any such way of doing business. If my right hon. friend finds it necessary to leave that is his own affair, and he will arrange that with his colleagues; but I do say that in the interest of decent parliamentary government we ought not to rush business through in the way that has been done more than once-and I repeat that it is not true of any one government more than another. If we want to have Parliament respected by the country, Parliament must stay here and perform its duties.


Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN:: (Prime Minister) : I do not know any ground for the assertion that it is the desire of the Government to rush business through without consideration, or to have hundreds of

millions of dollars voted without adequate review and reflection on the part of the Committee of Supply of the House. I know of no ground for that statement.
I know it has been the practice-and in some degree that may have been followed this year-of having business done more expeditiously-and towards the end perhaps too expeditiously-than is done in the earlier part of the session. But if we are ever to have a session end in any reasonable time without recourse to such a practice, then it must inevitably follow that less time must be wasted in the earlier part of the session. The Government is not responsible for the fact that the House wasted many days in the consideration of subjects that really should not have engaged very much of its attention. It is not the Government's fault that that waste of time takes place. However, the fact is that it has taken place, and we have not very much more time this session to give due consideration to all the matters that are before Parliament.
I do not think there ever was a session when the legislation and the Estimates were presented to the House at an earlier period than they were this session. That we find ourselves at this stage with a great deal of business still to be done is certainly not the fault of the Government. As to fixing a date to enable Parliament to close before I leave, I do not think it is reasonable to expect that I should in a session like this particularly, it 'being my first session as the leader of the Government-leave prior to prorogation. It has never been my intention to do so; it i0 not my intention now. I do not think the country would expect that I should leave when the conduct of the business of Parliament requires me to stay.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I had not intended to say anything in regard to the remarks which have been made, but when my right hon. friend speaks of the time of Parliament being wasted, unless he is referring to what has occurred on his own side of the House, I would take very strong exception to his statement. Any discussion from this side of the House has been entirely to the point in regard to the various measures that have been under consideration. I would point also out to my right hon. friend that such legislation now on the Order Paper as amounts to anything has been introduced in the last couple of days. That is entirely the fault of the Government; we on this side have had nothing whatever to do with it. I would strongly urge, in regard to one or two measures and certainly in regard to one that is liable to raise very far-reaching considerations, that my right hon. friend should consider between now and Monday if he could not let it stand over until next session. I have reference to the Lake of the Woods Bill. I think it would be wise to let it stand over. This would probably enable him to expedite his departure.


Arthur Meighen: There have been some Bills put on lately, there may be one or two more, but their late appearance is not our fault. I could not give a better instance than the Bill the hon. gentleman has referred to. That subject was dealt with by this Parliament early in this session, and fully disposed of on the basis of co-operation with ,the Government of Ontario, that Government having agreed to put a concurrent Bill through the Ontario Legislature. We performed our part of the agreement; they failed to perform theirs. That put back upon us towards the end of the session the choice of either letting the situation stand-under circumstances that I will be able to show to this House would not be to the advantage of the country, and which I am sure this House would not be willing to agree to- or to bring down further legislation. I am not saying that that is the fault of hon. gentlemen opposite, for there could not be any complaint in regard to the discussion on the measure which this House disposed of; but it is the result of circumstances over which we have no control, and consequently the matter must be dealt with before the close of this session.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In regard to the point my right hon. friend mentions,_ I think I am correct in saying that the Bill which passed this House would never have been allowed to pass in that form except on the understanding that there Was to be concurrent legislation by the Ontario House. It was distinctly on that understanding that we on this side concurred in allowing the Bill to pass. But, that concurrent legislation not having been passed by the Ontario Government, we were led to assume that would be the end of the matter, and I think we had the right to so assume.


Arthur Meighen: I do not know who led the hon. gentleman to assume that. We thought we could rely upon the statement that the Ontario House would pass con-

current legislation, but we found that our reliance was misplaced. Therefore, the situation is before Parliament to deal with. We will have to deal with it, and I am sure I will take no exception to the hon. gentleman opposing the legislation. I am strongly in favour of it, and I think when it is put fully before the House the majority of hon. members, if not, indeed many of those on his own side, will be in favour of the legislation.



SUPPLY-THE HERO OF CHATEAUGUAY

Rodolphe Lemieux: Mr. Speaker, as this
is one of the last occasions of my being able to speak to my right hon. friend, I want him to do a graceful act before he leaves for the Conference of Premiers. I have been asked by several citizens in various parts of the Dominion to lay before the Government for their consideration the case of the granddaughter of the hero of Chateauguay. As this House is aware, more than a hundred years ago Canada was saved at Chrysler's Farm and at Chateauguay Heights. The Canadians were led on the one hand by General MacDonell and on the other by Colonel de Salaberry. The colonel died in rather poor circumstances, and his direct descendant, Miss de Salaberry, also is in reduced circumstances. I have been asked, not at her request, but on behalf of several citizens, to appeal to the right hon. gentleman and the Government, and indeed the Parliament, to see if in this year's Estimates a pension cannot be provided for Miss de Salaberry, the granddaughter of the hero of Chateauguay.
It seems to me that this is eminently a case where the liberality and generosity of Parliament should be shown. The pension need not be a large one, but at the same time it should be adequate to the lady's station in life, and also to the memory of the great de Salaberry, who, according to the testimony of all historians, jointly with General MacDonell at
5 p.m. Chrysler's Farm saved Canada by repelling the attempted invasion of 1812. A monument has been erected to his memory, but it would be sad indeed if on the one hand we had a monument to Colonel de Salaberry and, on the other hand, we allowed his only granddaughter to remain in indigent circumstances. I think Parliament owes it to itself to do something in order to relieve the granddaughter of a great Canadian who not only served his country but indeed saved it.



SUPPLY-INQUIRY AS TO ESTIMATES

['Increase in salaries.']
Mr. J. A. ROBB (Chateauguay-Hunt-ingdon) :: Before you leave the Chair, Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the right hon. Prime Minister, in view of his desire for an early prorogation, when any further Supplementaries, if there are any, will be brought down.


Arthur Meighen: I know the Minister
of Finance expects them down on Monday.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the House went into Committee of Supply. Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Public Works-Ottawa Parliament Buildings,

Georges Henri Boivin: This item 127 was
under consideration when the House was last in committee. Shall the item carry?


Arthur Bliss Copp: Mr. Chairman, when the
committee rose last night I had in mind to say a few words in regard to this item. I have on different occasions, particularly last year, discussed with the then acting Minister of Public Works the unbusinesslike methods followed in connection with this restoration. Much was said yesterday when this item was under consideration as to the magnificent architectural design of this building and its beauty. These features I do not propose to discuss. But my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works appealed to us yesterday and said that he hoped Parliament would deal generously with the architect who has been engaged on this work during the past four or five years.
I have no desire to deal ungenerously with any person in the public service. But I wish to point out that when the Estimate for the restoration of this building was under consideration at the last session, the then Acting Minister of Public Works (Mr. J. D. Reid), as reported on page 1423 of Hansard of last year, said that the original estimate of $5,000,000 was made by Mr. Pearson and Mr. Lyall. But we are now told that the cost of the building will be at least $10,000,000, and I should not be surprised if when the whole structure is complete the cost should turn out to be $12,000,000 or more. I have never believed that that is a proper way to conduct public business. I venture to say that no member of the building committee would, if he were building a house for himself, carry on the work as this work has been carried on. We are asked to deal generously with these gentlemen, but I want to point out that every thousand

dollars of generosity which we dole out to them represents a thousand dollars paid by the taxpayers of this country. We who are here to carry on the public business should not look at the question only from the standpoint of being generous to these gentlemen. From the statement made by my hon. friend it is evident that it will be the year after this before the work is completed, and if the architect is allowed 51 per cent on $10,000,000 we shall have to pay him for his work $550,000. To my mind such an expenditure is unreasonable and should not be tolerated by this committee. What is true of the architect 'is true of the contractor. I am not here to criticise Peter Lyall and Sons, but we were told last year that they entered into a contract under which they were to receive a commission of 8 per cent on the cost of building up to $4,000,000, 7 per cent on any further amount up to $5,000,000, and over and above that amount no commission at all. I do not criticise the present minister in this respect, because he is in no way responsible for what was done when the erection of this building was commenced. But he is responsible to-day for what is done in connection with the completion of the structure, and within the next few days he should have a conference with the contractors and the architect with a view to coming to a definite decision as to what is to be done. This matter should not be left in abeyance for another two years and payments made

 as I claim, improperly-to the architect and the contractors for work they have not performed. It was stated in the discussion that took place on this matter last year that the architects had been paid $255,000, in round figures. I did not hear all the discussion yesterday and I do not know whether the architects have been paid anything since last year, but any amount paid to them in excess of $275,000, the full amount under their contract, would, I submit, be improperly paid. I do not say that these men should not be paid something, but I do submit that the Minister of Public Works, on behalf of the people of Canada should enter into an arrangement with the contractors in regard to future work to be done on this building. We should not wait until the work is completed and then have to make a payment involving a total of $550,000 or $600,000 for supervising the construction of the building from start to finish. I feel very strongly about this matter; I think that unbusinesslike methods have
been followed, and that the work has been conducted in a very slipshod and unsatisfactory manner.


Mr. MURPHY:: It has not been my
privilege to hear all the discussion that has taken place with regard to this item since it first came before the committee this session. In years past I have occasionally listened to discussions with reference to the partial destruction of the old Parliament Building and the arrangements made for its reconstruction, and it has amazed me to hear the statements made and to observe the positions taken by hon. gentlemen on both sides who apparently have had a total misconception of the facts. Now, in view of the amount of money involved and of the character of the building to which this amount relates, it is worth while placing on record the facts relating to the destruction of the old building and to the steps that have been taken from time to time in regard to its reconstruction.
The fire that destroyed the old building occurred on the night of Thursday, February 3,	1916. That is not
the date which was inscribed on the mace that was presented to this House to replace the mace that was destroyed in the fire, but notwithstanding the error on the mace, the date which I have given was the date of the fire.
Immediately after the fire the then Minister of Public Works, Hon. Mr. Rogers, appointed two architects to investigate the damaged building as it then stood, to report upon its condition, and to advise what should be done to replace it. The gentlemen who were so appointed to make that inquiry and report were Mr. John A. Pearson, architect, of Toronto, and Mr. J. O. Marchand, architect, of Montreal. Just about that time rumours were persistent that the firm of P. Lyall and Sons, of Montreal, were going to be given whatever contract might be awarded, without tender and without competition. That rumour was not only heard in the corridors of Parliament but was persistently repeated in business circles, both in Ottawa and in Montreal. As a member of Parliament, but more particularly as a citizen of Ottawa and as representing a constituency, a portion of which is within the municipal boundaries of the city of Ottawa, I took, perhaps, more interest in the matter than any other member of the House, with the exception of my hon. friends who represent the city of Ot-


REVISED EDITION. COMMONS
[Stage Direction]
sure by the Department of Railways and Canals. The work is advertised to be let on a cost-plus basis. One contractor will send in a tender offering to do it for cost plus 4 per cent; another contractor will send in a tender offering to do it for cost plus 4i per cent, another at cost plus 5 per cent, and so on; so it is quite possible to secure competition even on the cost-plus system. May I point out this further, that the rule obtains among commercial and industrial companies that when work is awarded on the cost-plus basis there is usually a penalty set for failure to com. plete within the stipulated (time and a bonus paid for more speedy completion than the date mentioned in the contract. These features were absent from the contract made with P. Lyall & Sons, although they were, as I claim, to be paid an excessive percentage on the work, which they got without tender and without competition.
The members from the Opposition side of the House who were appointed to act on the joint committee were the then member for St. John, N.B., the hon. Dr. Pugsley, my hon. friend, the member for Gaspe (Mr. Lemieux), and myself.
After I returned to the city I made inquiry about the facts relating to the appointment of this committee and for the reasons which I have already made fairly clear this afternoon, I considered it my duty to resign. I did so.
The next incident of interest was that all the lumber in eastern Ontario seemed suddenly to have been collected in front of the ruins of the old building, and an enormous scaffold was constructed, which practically hid the whole of the north face of the building from view. The tremendous quantity of lumber used gave rise to a great deal of discussion. The then Minister of Public Works was interviewed, and he explained, according to the newspapers of the day, that it was necessary to erect a huge and costly scaffold for the reason that the old building, in pursuance of the architects' report, was to be rebuilt, that each stone was to be taken from the old building, marked, and placed carefully on this scaffold, so that later on when the work of reconstruction was proceeding each of these stones could be put bacx in its original place. Not to make the story too long, Mr. Chairman, the scaffold disappeared one fine night, and on another fine night the whole building disappeared. The whole building was razed to the ground, and there was nothing left here on Par-
liament hill but a cleared space of so many acres. I recall being rather curious as to how this building, which, according to the architects' report over their own signature, after making what they described as a careful examination, represented an asset of $2,000,000, came to be destroyed overnight, and as to the authority for its destruction. The then member for St. John, who was one of the members of the Joint Committee from the Liberal side of the House, said that he did not know on whose authority the building had been removed. The Minister of Public Works said that he had given no authority for its removal. The thing remained a mystery for a few days, and nobody could ascertain how this national asset of $2,000,000 had disappeared over-night until Mr. Pearson, the architect, gave a statement to the papers that it was on his authority it had been removed, that defects had been found in the building, and that he considered it the proper thing to have the old building pulled down. Well if Mr. Pearson was right on that occasion, what is to be said about Mr. Pearson and his fellow-architect who signed the report stating that the building as it stood after the fire represented an asset of $2,000,000, and that it could re re-used? I do not know, Sir, that these facts have previously been drawn to .he attention of the committee. Assuming that that has not been done I consider it a duty devolving upon somebody to acquaint the committee with the facts, and that is why I am making these observations, to be followed by a few others, this afternoon.
Shortly after the period to which I have referred, my hon. friend from Gaspe retired from the committee. A little later on, in the fall of 1917, the then hon. member for St. John retired from public life and became Lieutenant Governor of the province of New Brunswick. So that that left the Joint Committee, as it is improperly called, and as it has continued to be improperly called, without any representatives from the Opposition side of the House. Since 1917, there has been no representative from this side of the House on this so-called Joint Committee for the reconstruction of the Parliament building. And yet Sir, notwithstanding that fact, each year a vote is solemnly put through this House which is explained in the Estimates as follows:
Ottawa Parliament Building-Restoration. The plans for the said building and the method to be adopted for securing the reconstruction

thereof to be subject to the approval of the Joint Committee appointed by the Prime Minister and the leader of the Opposition.
As I have said, there has been no member from this side of the House on that Joint Committee since 1917. The present leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King), has not made any appointments to that committee, and I submit that it is altogether misleading and improper that this language should be used to explain this vote.
Now, Mr. Chairman, in addition to the objections that have been voiced by the member for Westmoreland (Mr. Copp), I desire to point out that in the interests of historical fact, and also having regard to the orderly conduct of business in this House, the wording of this item should at least be changed, so that on the present occasion, and hereafter, when moneys are to be voted they will be voted with the proper verbal explanation attached to the vote in the Estimates.
I would further urge that the Department of Public Works, if it has not already done so, should utilize the services of some of the numerous capable officers in its em' ploy, to take official- charge of the work remaining to be done in and about this building. I appeal to the minister, to stop, through his officers, the placing of what, for want of a better term, I may describe as mushy inscriptions on the walls of the rooms within the building, and on the outer wall of the main tower itself. I understand that some reference was made to this subject yesterday afternoon. I did not happen to be in the chamber at the time, but I desire to add my protest and objection to the continuance of that practice, which I understand was not authorized or approved by the remnant of this alleged Joint Committee, and I know that my hon. friend the minister (Mr. McCurdy), has no responsibility in the matter at all.
Ernest Lapointe: Does my hon. friend know who is responsible for the inscriptions?


Charles Murphy: I do not know who is responsible for them.


Mr. JACOBS:: I may inform the hon. gentleman; it is King David, of the Psalms.


Charles Murphy: Yes; but my knowledge of history leads me to the belief that the gentleman referred to by my hon. friend from George Etienne Cartier (Mr. Jacobs), quit house building a great many centuries ago. He has nothing to do with the
259i
placing of these inscriptions on the building at the present time. I rather think it is the architect who is responsible, inasmuch as this building throughout exhales an overseas atmosphere, and in no particular breathes the air of Canada. I assume that it is the architect who is responsible for these mushy inscriptions, and I believe from what I have been told of the discussion yesterday, that such, in fact, was stated to this committee. In all seriousness I urge the Minister of Public Works to take such steps as will result in the removal of such of these inscriptions as can be removed without doing actual damage to the structure, and in any event, to prevent any more of them from being put up without competent authority.
I should also like to say a word with reference to the fulsome eulogies I have heard from time to time about the design of this building. Occasionally, to hear this building referred to, you would think it was a miracle of original architectural genius on the part of the gentlemen, or rather the gentleman, in whose charge the work has been placed. Well, the building, as everyone knows, externally, at any rate, is a copy of the old building. There has been an extra story added, it is true, but the general contour of the outside of the building is in almost exact accord with that of the old structure. Then, in most of the interior details in which this building differs from the old one, it exhales, as I have said, an overseas atmosphere, and in no particular does it breathe the air of Canada. Any person who has travelled will endorse what I say. The courts outside the entrances to the House of Commons and the Senate are modelled on portions of any of the old abbeys that are scattered throughout the British isles. The upper floor surrounding the outer court of the House of Commons entrance is a slavish copy of the cloister in any one of the monasteries, the ruins of which may be viewed in England, Scotland, or Ireland, at the present day. There is nothing original about it except the daring of the architect who would place an imitation cloister in a building the halls of which are traversed by the member for West Toronto (Mr. Hocken) -


Mr. BEST:: You want it to look like the Dublin Court House?


Charles Murphy: Well, if the present
building were built in imitation of the Court House in Dublin, I think it would be more appropriate as a legislative building than the one we now have. But I am dealing

now with some of the interior details, which are supposed to reflect the originality and genius of the architects. They are, as I have said, slavish copies of the old buildings put up by the monks, the despised monks, hundreds and thousands of years ago. Why, Sir, even the dominating feature of the central entrance hall-what is supposed to be the corner stone, which begins in a shaft and then spreads out at its full height like an open umbrella-is a slavish imitation of an original hit of architecture to be found in the Lady Chapel of Lincoln Cathedral in England.


John Allister Currie: Also in King's Chapel,
in Cambridge.


Charles Murphy: It may be in King's
Chapel in Cambridge also; I have no doubt it has been repeated in a number of chapels in the Old Country, because the monks were great cathedral builders, sound architects, as well as sound men in other respects, in regard to which my hon. friend from North Simcoe (Mr. Currie) might not agree with them. I want to point out the necessity of exercising a little common sense about this new building, the necessity of displaying some taste and some idea of the fitness of things in the inscriptions that may be used, as well as the necessity of applying some business methods to the remainder of the work that has to be done before the building is completely finished. I could point out other details in connection with the interior of the structure, all of which are copies of some of the details of the old abbeys and monasteries in the British Isles; but that is not necessary to emphasize the point I am making.
Now, in conclusion, I want to say a word to my hon. friend (Mr. McCurdy). He owes it to the committee and to the House to give full details as to the complete cost of this building. He should give complete details as to the arrangement with the contractors, and particularly what they were to be paid when the cost should exceed $5,000,000. It is idle to pretend that the firm of P. Lyall and Sons, or any other shrewd and capable business men, would continue to work upon a structure when the cost has risen from $5,000,000 to $10,000,000, without being paid on some recognized business basis for the additional five millions worth of work which they have done upon it. If anybody advances that proposition seriously, then I would say to him he had better "tell it to the marines" because no sensible man would believe it.
[Mr. Murphy-1
In another particular, Mr. Chairman, I desire to urge upon the minister that the jurisdiction of the architect-or architects, or of whoever is responsible for carrying on here with a free hand,-should be restricted and that matters relating to design and to cost-and I would say additional work as well-should be taken charge of by the Department of Public Works, and the responsible minister should be in a position to give this committee and the House full information with regard to the whole of this work. For, in the last analysis, even though neither he, nor his deputy, nor his officers have very much to do with it, still the public will hold him and them responsible.
I hope, Sir, that I need do no more than refer again to the contradiction between the terms of the architect's report that the damaged building represented an asset of $2,000,000, and the fact of its removal, according to all the information we have, without authority, and then to the erection of an entirely new building which has already cost double the amount it was originally said it would cost;-I need do no more than call attention to these serious discrepancies to emphasize the necessity of the Minister of Public Works adopting new ^methods under which the remainder of this work may be carried out.


Thomas Vien: Before we go much further I would also like to point out to the minister the error which has been committed in translating an inscription on the central pillar in the main entrance from English into French. I placed a question relative to the matter on the Order Paper some time ago and I received this answer:
The inscription on the central [DOT] column is a translation of the inscription, as Anally adopted, which was recommended hy the Special Committee appointed conjointly hy the Senate and House of Commons to report on the method of celebrating the Fiftieth Anniversary of the Federation of the Dominion. The translation was made by A. D. Decelles, C.M.G., D.Lit., M.S.R.C., former General Librarian of Parliament.
Now, Mr. Decelles has advised me that he was in no way responsible for the translation of that inscription-he denied that he had any responsibility therefor, and stated that he had nothing to do with it. That is as regards the inscription in French. The inscription in English is "baroque" as we say in French. I do not want to be considered an authority on good English but I know enough of the language to know that the English inscription is badly phrased. One needs to know very

little of the English language to find that out. The French inscription reads:
"A l'oocasion du cinquantiSme anniversaire de la Confederation constituant en Dominion du Canada les Colonies Britanniques de l'Amgri-que du Nord. .
Dans ce bout de phrase il y a deux fautes. Continuing in English, let me say that the Confederation never constituted anything, it was being constituted; and it is a piece of foolishness to put such an inscription on a monument which we presume will last for centuries and which will be there as showing our inaccurate knowledge not only of English but of French.


John Allister Currie: Read the English inscription.


Thomas Vien: I have not got it here. However, it states that Confederation constituted the Dominion of Canada into a Confederation. I say that Confederation was being constituted and did not constitute anything. Let me point out to the minister that at the time of Confederation the French translation of the word "Dominion" was "Puissance" and Puissance is a much more appropriate word. I regret that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) is'not here to give us his opinion. He has been declaring that we were now a power, that we were now a nation. Well, the word "Puissance" translates very well the word "Dominion." "Dominion" is not French at all. It is, of course, derived from the Latin word "Domino."


John Allister Currie: From the changed version of the Bible.


Thomas Vien: I am sure the men who
translated the inscription on the building must have been great Biblical authorities.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Sir Leonard Tilley.


Thomas Vien: The word "Dominion" is a
very good English word, it belongs to that language; but nowhere in the French language will you find the word "Dominion". No dictionary will give you that word as French. Yet you find on the central pillar of the main entrance to the hall-the Hall of Fame-an inscription which exhibits to all generations to come how little we know of the French language. We on this side will certainly be held responsible for the translation-the responsibility will not fall on the shoulders of hon gentlemen opposite. Thus it will help to spread the legend that the people of Quebec do not speak French but a patois, a half-breed language between
the Huron and the French. I wish to point out in the first place that it is a veryj wrong thing for a minister of the Crown to give information which is utterly inaccurate, which is an absolute falsehood, to an hon. member of the House who asks a question. I do not hold my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works responsible for that, I know how it is done. But I wish to point out to the Government that greater care should be exercised in the preparation of answers given in the House. The Minister of Railways gave me two or three answers during the present session which are absolutely in contradiction of the facts.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am surprised.


Thomas Vien: I was not as surprised to
receive inaccurate answers from the Minister of Railways as I was to receive them from the Minister of Public Works. However, I do not hold either minister altogether responsible, but I draw their attention to the fact that the answers they give should be accurate. In the second place I think it is a very wrong thing to endeavour to place responsibility for the phrasing of this inscription upon such a distinguished gentleman as Mr. Decelles, who knows the French language thoroughly, who is one of our most distinguished compatriots in the province of Quebec and who is a great litterateur-I think it is a mistake to associate his name with an inscription which is so badly phrased. In the third place I think that before placing an inscription in French on the centre pillar more care should have been taken. Finally, may I suggest to the minister, that Mr. Pearson himself told me that it would be a very minor matter indeed to. remove the three stones on the centre pillar containing the inscription. I strongly urge on my hon. friend that steps should be taken to have the change made without further delay, unless he wishes to pass down to posterity as nor knowing the French language, nor even the English language, because the English inscription will have to be changed as well. May I ask the minister if there is any hope that this will be attended to?


John Allister Currie: Carried.


Thomas Vien: My hon. friend from North Simcoe (Mr. Currie) is really in too much of a hurry. If he wishes the item to stand over for further discussion he may be assured that he is following the very course that will bring about such a result-


John Allister Currie: Mr. Chairman-


Thomas Vien: While I am on my feet let the hon. gentleman wait. I am not here to give him a lesson in deportment, but I think I may concur in the remarks which the hon. member for Red Deer addressed to the hon. member for North Simcoe the other day.


Georges Henri Boivin: Order.


John Allister Currie: The hon. gentleman has been absent from this chamber for several weeks, no doubt down in Yamaska, and now he comes in and tries to delay the proceedings.


Georges Henri Boivin: Order. The lecturing of one hon. member by another is /lot revelant to the item under consideration and the remarks of both hon. gentlemen are absolutely out of order.


Ernest Lapointe: That is the only thing that the hon. member for North Simcoe does.


Georges Henri Boivin: Order.
At Six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at Eight o'clock.


PRIVATE BILLS
[Stage Direction]
DIVORCE-ALPHONSE LeMOYNE de MARTIGNY
The House again in committee on Bill No. 120 (from the Senate) for the relief of Alphonse LeMoyne de Martigny-Mr. Ross-Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Georges Henri Boivin: When this Bill was
last before the committee the preamble had been read, the consideration thereof had been postponed, and clause 1 had been read and was under discussion. Shall the clause carry?


Thomas Vien: Many hon. members on this side who wish to express their views on this Bill are unavoidably absent to-night. I would move, therefore, that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.


Arthur Meighen: The committee, of
course, to sit again this day on the other private Bills.


Thomas Vien: We want the same order
to be kept in the divorce Bills.
Progress reported.


CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READINGS
[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 202, from the Senate, for the relief of Agnes Robertson.-Mr. Fripp.
TMr. Currie.]
Bill No. 203, from the Senate, for the relief of Hilda May Freeman.-Mr. Mowat.
Bill No. 207, from the Senate, for the relief of Sarah Ann King.-Mr. Smith.
Bill No. 208, from the Senate, for the relief of Richard John Whitley.-Mr. Porter.
Bill No. 209, from the Senate, for the relief of Herbert Morgan Davies.-Mr. Mowat.
Bill No. 210, from the Senate, for the relief of James Charles Allward.-Mr. Currie.
Bill No. 214, from the Senate, for the relief of Ernest Joseph Wismer.-Mr. Mowat.
Bill No. 215, from the Senate, for the relief of Carman Adams.-Mr. Mowat.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 217 (from the Senate), respecting the Calgary and Fernie Railway Company.-Mr. Stevens.
[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Boivin in the Chair:
Public Works, chargeable to capital-Ottawa Parliament building restoration, $1,000,000.
Georges Henri Boivin: When the House rose at six o'clock, this item was under discussion. Shall the item carry?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Harbours and rivers-St. John Harbour improvements, $1,250,000.
Mr. LEGER:: This item being very
large, I should like to have some information in reference to the St. John harbour improvements.


Mr. McCURDY:: The main portion of this appropriation is for improvements in Courtenay bay. As my hon. friend doubtless knows, the improvement of Courtenay bay was undertaken years ago, and a contract was entered into with the St. John Dry Dock and Shipbuilding Company to carry out dredging and improvements in that part of St. John harbour. The amount represented in this appropriation is almost altogether for payments which will fall due for work done by the contractors in connection with Courtenay bay improvements.


Auguste Théophile Léger: Is this for the completion of the work at Courtenay bay?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: No. It is for carrying on work that is under contract and that is proceeding from year to year. This is the amount which will be earned this

year by the contractors in the progress of the construction work at Courtenay bay under the contract.


Auguste Théophile Léger: The minister said that this work commenced year's ago. Has he any advice from the engineer as to when this work will be completed? Millions and millions of dollars have been expended there, and so far I do not know of any work that is nearly completed.
Mr. xvlcCURDY: I will give my hon. friend information as to the amount that has been paid out in connection with Courtenay bay and the present state of the work. The work is, however, still far from completion.


William Stevens Fielding: The work is a very large and important one, and I think the committee would be glad to have some information of a general character regarding the nature of the work that was contemplated, what has been done, what remains to be done, what amount has been expended and what will be the cost when the contract is completed.
On the motion of Mr. McCurdy, consideration of the item was postponed.
Civil Government-Public Works-Salaries $598,510 ; Contingencies, $85,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I understand that my hon. friend, after consultation with his head officer in the department, has reduced the engineers' districts in the various provinces. I do not blame my hon. friend if he has erred on the side of economy, but this reduction has caused1 many heart-burnings, and I am afraid that some injustice has been done, at least in the district with which I am most familiar. I called the minister's attention at the time, during recess, to what I considered to be an injustice. Of course, the hon. gentleman acted on the advice of his chief officer, and I am not blaming him personally.
The particular case I have in mind is that of the Chief Resident Engineer for the district of Gaspe, which is a large district, comprising the peninsula of Gaspe and the Magdalen islands. The gentleman who had charge of that district was Mr. Joseph Tetu Bertrand, a very worthy official of the department. I happen to have known Mr. Bertrand since, I am sorry to say, nearly thirty-five years ago. He was a class-mate of mine at the University of Ottawa, and as far back as the year 1884 or thereabout, he began his studies as an engineer at McGill. The Department of Public Works, then under the direction of
the late Sir Hector Langevin, availed itself of Mr. Bertrand's services, and during 1884 and for several years afterwards he was sent to various points in the province of Quebec. In 1897, if I mistake not, at the instigation of the then sitting member for the county of Kamouraska, now Mr. Justice Carroll, supported by my humble self, the then Minister of Public Works, the late Mr. Tarte, appointed him District Engineer for the district of Gaspe. Mr. Bertrand has had charge of the various works which have been under way in that district, and during those twenty-four years I believe that he has given the Department most excellent service. During that time he was considered as more than a local resident engineer, because the department sent him on special missions as far as British Columbia. Mr. Bertrand was retained, for instance, as one of the advising engineers for the works on the Fraser river, a highly technical work, and I know as a matter of fact that the engineers with whom he was associated were pleased with his reports and his advice. In the lower St. Lawrence the works which he was more especially connected have stood the tests of time. I think if my hon. friend would consult his deputy and the other officials of the department, he would find that Mr. Bertrand has given, as I stated a moment ago, excellent service in that district. When my hon. friend decided to adopt the policy of reducing the districts, a policy I am not criticizing at all, because I believe he intended to effect some economy, some injustice, inadvertently, I am sure, was done in the province of Quebec to that old and efficient official. If a chief engineer had to be appointed in the reorganization it seems to me that, in justice to Mr. Bertrand, he should have been appointed head of the enlarged district, but another gentleman, against whom I have nothing to say, and who may also be a deserving official, was appointed in his stead. Mr. Bertrand, as a matter of fact, was reduced in his standing, and to-day he is only a senior clerk in the Rimouski office. I do not know, and I should like my hon. friend to inform the committee, whether Mr. Bertrand retains his former salary, or whether his salary, which was none too lafige, has been increased. I hope however, that in the new organization my hon. friend will make it a point to act fairly towards that deserving official1. There are always to be found in the different departments overzealous officials; I do not mean in the sense

of improving the service, for an over-zeal in that direction is never to be despised, but there are sometimes officials who have a grudge against a confrere, and it so happens that, having the ear of the minister and of the higher officers in the department, they sometimes succeed in doing an injustice, but an injustice will not last. Has my hon. friend received any complaints against Mr. Bertrand? Is it not a fact that he has been all these years a deserving and honest official who has given the department most efficient service? If he was a good official, could the minister not give him the standing which he had previously ? I am informed that by seniority Mr. Bertrand should have been the chief resident engineer of the new district of Rimouski, which comprises Rimouski proper, Bonaventure, Gaspe, and perhaps Chicoutimi, although I am not sure. It would be very unfortunate if, at his age, after so many years of faithful and devoted service to the Crown, this official should be handicapped at the present time. I hope the minister will give me a satisfactory answer on the points I have raised.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: As probably all hon. members are aware, certainly all who have been in close touch with government operations for the past ten years, the expenditures by the Department of Public Works on new undertakings have been substantially curtailed during the past six or seven years, and the amount of money available for improvements of a public character is much smaller than formerly. The largest expenditures by the department were made, I think, in the year 1913, but since that time the votes for these purposes have fallen by some $10,000,000. Now, it is quite evident that a staff of engineers which was capable of coping with expenditures of the larger sums is more than sufficient to take care of the expenditures under the reduced votes. For a year or two previous to the time I assumed direction of the department, a plan of reorganization had been in contemplation in order to reduce the staff to a number more in keeping with the demands upon it. Under a report prepared by the chief engineer under date January 29, of this year, a reorganization was effected of the Engineering Branch of the department, and while it is not necessary for me to refer in detail to the reductions and consequent changes, I might say that the net result is that the establishment

of the Engineering Branch has been reduced from 230 to 138.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The Outside Service?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: That is the outside Service, although one of the outside districts sio-called is located in the city of Ottawa, with a consequent saving in the total expenditures foR salaries in that branch. Unquestionably, every one would approve of some form of reorganization under the circumstances that have prevailed of late years and I myself have always felt it was the duty of the minister to effect these sayings if possible. But in order to accomplish that result the status of some officers must necessarily be affected. You cannot make an omelet without breaking eggs, and I have no doubt that one of the reasons why this reorganization was postponed was that, previous to last year, no provision existed for' such officers as might be retired. At the last session of Parliament, however, a Retirement Act was piloted through the House by the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Calder) and that Act made provision, perhaps not generous, but still a provision, for officers who might be retired when their services were no longer required. The officers in the engineering service who are to be retired, will be entitled to the benefits provided in that Act. I am not personally acquainted, as hon. members will understand, with the members of the engineering staff at large, so I directed the chief engineer of the department to call into council his district engineers from the various engineering districts in the country, and, after consultation with them to prepare a slate of officials who, in their opinion, were best qualified to administer the services of the department. Thisi Reorganization was Jto take effect on May 1, and, of course, the proposed establishment and (personnel was referred to the Civil Service Commission for its approval. If there has been any case of hardship in the selection of the officers who are to be retained, an appeal will lie to the Civil Service Commission. I am quite satisfied that the chief engineer of the department has exercised his best discretion as to which of the members of the staff should remain to direct the future operations of the different engineering districts. However, as I have said, if there is any case of hardship, an appeal lies to the Civil Service Commission, and I am sure that if an error has been made by the chief engineer in any respect, it will be corrected. I cannot refer very particularly

to the case mentioned by my hon. friend from Gaspe; what I have said in a general way applies to the' official in question. I can assure the committee that the retirement of tiled and competent officials is an unpleasant and unwelcome occurrence for the minister. There are officials who are changed to other locations, and others who are retired. Many are excellent men, and it is no reflection whatever on them if they are removed to some other place ofl are retired.


Rodolphe Lemieux: This official was not retired; he was reduced in rank.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: I can give the position to which he has been recommended by the chief engineer.


Rodolphe Lemieux: If you please.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: The assignments are not final until they receive the approval of the Civil Service Commission. The engineer to whom my hon. friend has alluded and who, I understand, is an excellent official, has been recommended by the chief engineer to be employed as senior assistant engineer in the combined district. If he suffers in salary at all, it will only, perhaps, be to the extent of $100 or so. His is one of several cases where a man who previously had charge of a district has been placed second in charge of a larger district.


Auguste Théophile Léger: If the transfer of the engineering office from Chatham, N.B., to St. John was for the purpose of economy, I would heartily concur in it, but in the northern part of that province there are hundreds of miles of sea and river shore with numerous breakwaters and wharves where considerable dredging is required. From Chatham the departmental engineer could, in his automobile, cover one-half of the district and return in one day. But to go from St. John to various parts of Restigouche and Westmoreland, and other parts of the province, occupies a much longer time. I do not see any economy in it, because there is a greater expenditure of time and then there is the expense incurred in travelling. That loss of time is much greater than would be the case if the office were retained in Chatham and, of course, the expense is much heavier. To show the committee how the transfer was brought about, perhaps I may be permitted to quote from a letter written by the Minister of Customs and Excise (Hon. R. W. Wigmore) to the St. John Commercial Club. The quotation is as follows:
You will remember that in amalgamating the engineering services of the Public Works Department it was the intention to have the headquarters at Chatham and not at St. John, but I was successful in having the headquarters located at St. John, which, of course, resulted in a very strong protest from Chatham, so that St. John is undoubtedly getting some additional benefit from the amalgamation of the public works engineering services.
In view of this statement by the Minister of Customs, it would appear that a desire to have work done and expenditures made in the city of St. John was the reason for the removal of the office from Chatham, and that it was not a step taken in the interests of economy. I certainly protest against it because, in my opinion, Chatham was a more central place in view of the conditions in the northern part of the province.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: I need not assure my
hon. friend from Kent (Mr. Leger) that one could not undertake a reorganization of the district engineering offices of the Department of Public Works, or any number of local offices, without the communities affected by that reorganization seeking to have those offices retained where they formerly were. The number of district engineering offices has been reduced, under the reorganization from thirty-one to sixteen, and it will be no surprise to the committee to learn that fr'om thirteen of the fifteen places where the offices are being closed, protests have come from local bodies and even from members of Parliament. That is not surprising because we all understand what the feeling would be in the local district in each case; but if heed were to be paid only to local sentiment, and we were to disregard the wider interests involved, it would be impossible to make progress at all. In the selection of the headquarters for the enlarged districts, and in the location of the most convenient and central point for the location of the district engineering office, the opinion of the chief engineer was the opinion that ruled. In New Brunswick it happens that in his opinion, and I see no reason to overrule that opinion-in fact I see no reason to overrule his opinion in any of the cases- St. John was, all' things considered, a more convenient place, and by the amalgamation a saving was effected. I am sure that many members of the House have been anxious to-day to hear news from New Brunswick. Well, I have some good news from that province for the committee. It is, that under the reorganization there will be a saving of upwards of $8,000 in the

cost of operating the engineering services in the province.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Will the minister kindly state how many districts there were in each province before the reorganization, and what the number is now?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: Yes, with pleasure. Before the reorganization to which I have alluded there existed in the province of Nova Scotia, five districts. Under the reorganization, there is one. In Prince Edward Island there was one district, and there will be one under reorganization. In New Brunswick, there were two districts, and under reorganization there will be one. In Quebec there were eight districts; under reorganization there are four. In Ontario there were eight districts; under reorganization there are four. In the Prairie Provinces there were two districts; under reorganization there is one. In British Columbia there were five districts; under reorganization there are three. The result is a total now of sixteen districts with a staff of 140 instead of 239. It will be of interest to the committee to know that while the salary list as of April 1, 1920, was $445,440 representing, after deducting the salaries of those who have resigned or are deceased aggregating $48,060, a net total of $397,380-the present salary 9 p.m. list amounts to $312,980, or a saving of $132,460 for the next fiscal year and of $84,400 over the past fiscal year. To the latter amount must be added a saving in round figures of $10,000 in the salaries of construction foremen who henceforth will be employed part time only. Moreover, it must not be forgotten that the salaries of the proposed staff include the statutory increases for the next fiscal year of $15,000. Therefore the net economy represents $109,400.


John Howard Sinclair: Has my hon. friend given credit for the pensions or retiring allowances to the retired officers ?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: The amount of the retiring allowances is not figured in that calculation, but it is not very large. There will be a very substantial saving, but it cannot be figured with definiteness because until the retirements are effective the amounts payable for retiring allowances will not be known.


John Howard Sinclair: The
minister has to provide for the 99 who are retired, for I presume they are not going 
to be put out on the street without some provision being made for them.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: I have said there were 240 positions under the old establishment. During the past three or four years vacant positions have not been filled. The new establishment calls for some 140 positions only.


John Howard Sinclair: Can
my hon. friend tell us how much will be expended per year to pay the retiring allowances of those whose services have been dispensed with?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: I have already advised the committee that those amounts are not yet definitely ascertained. In cases where officials have been in the employ *of the department for a shorter period than ten years a lump sum gratuity is paid to them; and to those officials with ten years' service or over a retiring allowance of one-sixfiieth is given fotr each year's service up to thirty years. That is to say, an official retired after eleven years' service would receive eleven-sixtieth's of his average salary for the previous three years. So the amount involved could not under any circumstances exceed one half the salaries being received.


Auguste Théophile Léger: Have all the staff of the engineer's office in Chatham been discharged?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: Not by any means.
New Brunswick is not one of the provinces where the saving effected by reorganization is greatest. The proposed staff of the amalgamated office is as follows: District engineer, Mr. Geoffrey Stead; senior assistant engineer. Mr. F. G. Goodspeed; assistant engineers, H. F. Bennett and G. E. Martin, A. W. Wilbur, W. C. Ewing; junior engineers to be promoted J. H. Thurber, W. J. Johnston; bookkeeper H. A. MacMurray; staff stenographer, C. M. McLean; employees to be retired under reorganization, K. A. Brown, draftsman; M. C. Irvine, junior draftsman.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: I think one from the former Chatham office and one from the St. John office.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: I think one from that office and one from the St. John office.


Auguste Théophile Léger: I do not see that very much saving is effected, because they have the same staff at St. John, and the travelling expenses to any part of New Brunswick coast line will be heavy. I think there

will be a good deal more loss of time if they are all centralized in one office.


William Stevens Fielding: What the minister has read is for the establishment of the headquarters staff in New Brunswick?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: Yes.


William Stevens Fielding: Has the hon. gentleman a statement for the reorganization at Halifax?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: Oh, yes. I should like the committee to understand that the recommendations I am reading are made by the chief engineer of the Public Works Department, and both the establishment and the personnel are subject to approval by the Civil Service Commission. In Nova Scotia the office of district engineer-which is called a grade 2 office-is to be filled by C. E. W. Dodwell; senior assistant engineers, T. J. Locke, W. P. Morrison; assistant engineers, J. R. Freeman. H. N. Putman, N. C. Ralston, O. S. Cox and two engineers to be promoted; junior assistant engineers, A. MacGillivray, P. D. Mosher, H. Munro; engineer clerk, W. S. Archibald; draftsman, H. P. Bernasconi; staff stenographers, E. B. Blois, A. Connell; junior clerk stenographer, C. MacDonald. Employees to be retired: G. A. Bernasconi; A. Bernasconi; Melville McKean; C. E. Hamilton; M. McDonald; Miss M. Fry; Miss A. M. Jones.


John Howard Sinclair: Does
that comprise the whole number to be retired from all the offices in Nova Scotia?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: Yes.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Before the reclassification was made, in what class was Mr. McKean? Was he not assistant to Mr. Bernasconi for many years?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: He was assistant engineer.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: That is, he was next to the chief in the office at North Sydney?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: If my hon. friend
means that he was next in seniority in the office of the district engineer, yes.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Mr. McKean has been in the service of the department for twenty-one years or longer. In 1918 or the latter part of 1917, when the Government found it necessary to establish an aeroplane station at North Sydney, Mr. McKean who has the training of an architect as well as of an engineer, was put in charge of that work, and at that time his salary was increased to $1,900 a year. I understand
that under the classification made by the Civil Service Commission of the employees of the Public Works Department these outside men were not properly classified, and that Mr. McKean, though he was regarded as chief assistant to Mr. Bernasconi, now finds himself in a grade far below that in which he thought himself to be for many years. I think that the minister or the proper officials of the department should see that Mr. McKean is put in the proper class before retirement so that he may get the benefit of his many years' service. If there are any papers or correspondence showing the history of Mr. McKean's connection with the department, the different positions he has occupied, the rates of salary that he has been paid and the classifications which were made of his position before the Civil Service Commission came in, I should be very glad if the minister would bring them down.
Mr. M'OCURDY: When an officer is retired under this reorganization, that is his fortune or misfortune, as the ease may be. Possibly it may prove to be good fortune to be retired under pension; if the officer in question has good qualifications it may mean the making of him, because he may go out into the world and make a bigger name for himself even than he did in the department, and have his pension besides. My memory is that this particular official, Mr. McKean, joined the engineering service thirteen or fourteen years ago. His salary on retirement was not $1,900, as my hon. friend has suggested, but $2,340, and if recommended he is entitled on retirement to a pension based on his average salary during the last three years of his service. Speaking of the retirements in that district, I may say that we lose in the reorganization the services of a well known engineer, Mr. G. A. Bernasconi, who has been in the service of the department continuously for almost thirty years, in addition to a previous service which wais subsequently broken by a year or two of absence from this country. But Mr. Bernasconi has reached an age at which engineers cannot be expected to be very active. In his retirement the department loses the services of a valuable officer.


John Howard Sinclair: How
much is Mr. G. A. Bernasconi entitled to on retirement? And what will Mr. Adolph Bernasconi receive?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: The whole reorganization is subject to the approval of the

Civil Service Commission, and until that is obtained and the matter finally put through the amount of retiring allowance cannot be known because the exact length of service cannot be determined.


William Stevens Fielding: From a statement made by the hon. gentleman as to the reduction of staff, I presume there will be some economy. But apart altogether from the cost of the retiring allowances I do not think we shall be in a very good position to estimate the extent of the economy until we have had a year's experience. The suggestion of my hon. friend from Kent with regard to travelling allowances will have to be considered. In Nova Scotia there were five districts; consequently, no one of these engineers would have to travel a long distance in connection with his work. If there is to be one district only I suppose we cannot complain if Halifax is chosen as the headquarters, but if every time a public work in Cape Breton has to be attended to the engineers must travel from Halifax to that district, two or three hundred miles distant and back, there will be a very considerable bill of expense. I do not know whether that has been taken into account, but as I say, I assume that there will be some measure of economy in the reduction of staff which is projected.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: I omitted to answer the second question by the hon. member for Guysborough. Mr. A. Bernasconi was in receipt of a salary of $2,460 previous to retirement. His retiring allowance would be based on the average salary received by him during the three years prior to his retirement. I have pleasure in informing the hon. member that Mr. Bernasconi can claim to receive the retiring allowance-


John Howard Sinclair: Will his bonus be taken into consideration?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: Not in computing the amount of retiring allowance. I may say in reply to the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's that the matter of travelling allowance has received full consideration. There have been a number of anomalies in the service. When I first became a member of Parliament the engineer for the county I represented, Shelburne and Queen's, was resident in Shelburne and his district comprised the counties of Shelburne, Queen's and Cumberland. In order to reach Cumberland, one part of his district, he had to pass through three or four intervening counties. In the reorganization an effort has been made to remove these

anomalies. Why such an arrangement was ever made passes my comprehension. The travelling expenses which will be incurred by operating from a central office will not be as much greater than they were under the old system as may appear at first sight. No matter from which office an officer proceeds, to reach the termination of his journey, a large part of that journey must be over the same ground and at the same expense, no matter whether he proceeds from one of the new central offices or from one of the old local engineering offices. The matter of travelling expenses and loss of time has all been taken into account, and I can assure the committee that there is a very substantial saving under the reorganization. No hard and fast lines have been drawn in attempting this. I fully appreciate that the actual efficiency of the service, the operating cost and that sort of thing, under the new conditions are more or less conjectural. If it be found, after a year's trial, that the results anticipated are not being obtained, the way is open for further correction. My view is-and I am sure it is the view of the officials of the department-that wherever an improvement can be made in operation, such improvement should be made. If it be found by experience that other dispositions can bring about more economical and efficient results, they will, of course, be adopted.


John Howard Sinclair: Can the minister say whether the whole Antigonish staff has been retained excepting Mr. Bernasconi?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: After reorganization, I notice the following names on the chief engineer's slate of proposed officers: A. MacGillivray, D. H. McDonald, P. D. Mosher, J. H. Munro, W. S. Archibald, H. P. Bernasconi, Miss C. Macdonald, Miss A. Connell. Those officers are supposed to be on the staff of the reorganized office, and if the names of the persons that my hon. friend is solicitous about on the Antigonish staff are on that list, he can be sure that the plan is to retain them on the reorganized staff.


Auguste Théophile Léger: Has the travelling inspector for the district of Chatham been dismissed or is he still in office?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: We have no official known by the name of "travelling inspector," but the department has for years employed what are known as "construction foremen." Possibly that is the official to whom my hon. friend refers.


Auguste Théophile Léger: Possibly. We call him "travelling inspector."


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: The duties of construction foremen are well indicated by the name which is given to the office. As my hon. friend knows, it is hot possible during the winter months to construct public works of the nature of those which are mostly constructed in his district, so that, apart from British Columbia where operations can be carried on during the whole year, it is not the plan of the department to employ construction foremen in future excepting as and when required. The net result of that will probably be that, for this summer, the construction foreman will be retained throughout the summer, and that possibly on towards the end of the year his services will not be further required, but as compensation for that work a somewhat higher salary will be given to the construction foreman while employed.	,


Auguste Théophile Léger: Will he have to move to St. John?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: It would not be at all necessary for him to move to St. John.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Do I understand that all these offices in Nova Scotia are abolished except the one that is now carried on at Halifax?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: The district engineering offices in Nova Scotia have been amalgamated into one office and that office will be at Halifax. The establishment of all the offices prior to reorganization was 25. Under the reorganization, it will be 16.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I understood the minister to say a minute ago that there would be only one district now covering a whole province with a central office at Halifax. Is that the only office in Nova Scotia?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: Yes.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Who is chief engineer?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: C. E. W. Dodwell.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: How old a man is he?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: I can obtain that information from the departmental records and forward to my hon. friend a statement of the exact age, but I think, speaking from my knowledge, that he is a man of sixty-seven or sixty-eight years of age.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: 'Why he should be singled out and made engineer of the whole province and a man like Mr. McKean,
who is a much younger and very capable engineer, should 'be named for execution,
I do not quite understand1. Mr. McKean is a capable engineer and a good architect, in every way competent to carry on any work that he was able to carry on previously. I presume he is a more competent man to-day than he was for a number of years before. It so happens that I know the names and political affiliations of the men that the minister mentioned. It so happens, by accident, of course, that McKean is the only Liberal in the bunch, the only man that was really appointed by a Liberal Government.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: Is my hon. friend speaking about retirement?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Yes. When from quite a number of men a Liberal is singled out for dismissal, it looks suspicious, to say the least. This man is just as capable as Mr. MacGillivray or Mr. McDonald, whom the minister has mentioned, but it so happens that Mr. MacGillivray and Mr. McDonald are Tories, appointed by a Tory Government. They are younger men, splendidly educated, good men in every way, and in a much better position to go out in the world and take another position than Mr. McKean. Mr. McKean has had twenty-one years in the public service-the minister says thirteen. Mr. McKean, in addition to his service with the Public Works Department, was in the Railway Department at Moncton as draftsman and engineer, so that his total public service is twenty-one years. The minister will find that I am not extending the time at all. Now when a man has given twenty-one years of his life to any one calling, be has become pretty well moulded to that kind of work and it is not so fit to be turned loose on the world as a younger man, like McDonald or MacGillivray, of whom the minister speaks. I think when a reorganization of this kind takes place, and only certain men are to be retained, the men who have given the longest service should be given the preference. But there is a very_ simple explanation. If Mr. Bernasconi had anything to do with selecting the man who should go, he would at once single out a Liberal; there is no question about that. My hon. friend seems to think it is a great pity that we are losing Mr. Bernasconi's services. I presume that he is a first-class man, but there is nothing compulsory about his retirement, for nearly two years ago Mr. Bernasconi told me that he wanted to retire. During the

time Mr. Carvell was Minister of Public Works he was wanting to retire, but the officers of the department for some reason or other would not consent to it, so there is no compulsion about his retirement. If Mr. McKean had to be retired, and was retired from the rank to which he is entitled, I would not have so much to say, but I particularly regret that he is being retired in a class that does not give him the benefit of the Act to the extent he deserves.
Of course, if the minister is going to pursue a policy of allowing every public work in Nova Scotia, and particularly in the Island of Cape Breton, to fall into decay, he will not have need of many engineers, but I do not think this is a time to take it for granted that we are never again going to look after public works in this country. There is a stringency in our finances now, and I can readily understand the minister not going on with new works, but we hope that that condition of affairs will not always last. When we get back to normal times, we shall require just as large and efficient a staff as before.
I would like to know whether the minister's policy is to allow the wharves and breakwaters and works of that kind to fall into decay, so that the fishermen will have to go back to the old conditions before the structures were built.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: If the argument put forward by my hon. friend was carried to its logical conclusion, it must prove that Mr. Bernasconi should be retained as chief engineer for the province, because he makes an argument for Mr. McKean's retention on the ground of his long service. Now for every year that Mr. McKean has served with the Government, Mr. Bernasconi has served more than a year.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: But not always as Mr Bernasconi. His name was Brown for a time.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: Whatever his name
was, my hon. friend will not deny his scientific attainments, and that he has served a longer time than Mr. McKean. Mr. Bernasconi was the dean of the engineering service of the Public Works Department in the Maritime Provinces.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: He never was. Mr. Millege was the head man of the Public Works Department in Nova Scotia.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: Mr. Millege is not in
the employ of the Public Works Department.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: He is dead now.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: Therefore he cannot be the dean of the engineering service in the Department of Public Works in Nova Scotia. Mr. Bernasconi succeeded Mr. Milledge in that position. Next to Mr. Bernasconi is Mr. Dodwell, the District Engineer for the amalgamated officers. My hon. friend may not know it, but Mr. Dodwell has excellent engineering attainments. His engineering qualifications are known far beyond the borders of the province of Nova Scotia.
My hon. friend has displayed a very intimate knowledge of local political conditions. He was able to tell the committee the political stripe of an officer in the service of the department at North Sydney who is being retired. He has more knowledge in that respect than I have, for I do not know the political leanings of any of these men who are being retired.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: But Mr. Bernasconi
did.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: I might tell my hon.
friend that two other officers are being retired who were appointed since 1912, so if there is one Liberal, as my hon. friend says, who is being retired, I think the committee will be satisfied that no intention has been paid to the political leanings of these gentlemen when I assure them that two men who were appointed since 1912, previous to the passing of the Civil Service Act, have also been retired.
It is an easy matter for the members of this committee to find fault with the lack of expenditure. I suppose the day will never come in this Parliament when there will not be criticism of whatever course the Government of the day may see fit to pursue. If the opinions expressed in this chamber are to be heeded, if the advice given by the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) is to be heeded, even the small votes that we are asking to maintain the public works that we now have would be smaller than they are. Surely, when there is no large amount of work to be done by engineering officers, it is the part of prudence and good administration to see that the expenditure in that direction should be as light as possible until more normal times come, and if in the meantime we exercise economy, will not the country be in a stronger position to proceed with necessary undertakings later on. My hon. friend knows that it is not from choice that small votes are asked for this year; it is because of conditions over which the committee has no control. Surely it is

the part of wisdom that, when money is so difficult to obtain, we should proceed along the line of economy. I think this will appeal to the judgment of my hon. friend.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I do not think it would appeal to the judgment of the minister himself that a valuable public work should be allowed to go to ruin. This breakwater cost $10,000 or $20,000 to erect, and was a magnificent structure, affording shelter to hundreds of fishermen's boats. It has been of inestimable benefit for the last 25 years, and the fishermen who depend upon it for shelter would not regard it as the part of wisdom for the Government to allow that work to fall into decay for the sake of saving the little money that might be spent repairing it. The deputy minister is quite familiar with Macleod's breakwater at Ingonish. It was built 23 years ago, and it has been of the utmost service to the fishermen of that place. But during the past few years it has been going to pieces. As a result of the action of the sea, it will soon disappear altogether unless something is done to reinforce it. It is right on the Atlantic, exposed to the full force of the elements. It would have been better for these fisherman had this breakwater not been built at all, if the Government is not going to repair it. It was because it was built that the fishermen built large boats.


Mr. BUTTS:: Is it not true that, under
the government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Macleod's breakwater was allowed to fall into decay, and a new one was erected a couple of hundred yards away for Mr. Burke, who was a strong supporter of that government?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It was not a couple
of hundred yards away. It is not true that Macleod's_ breakwater was allowed to fall into decay by the late government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier; it was kept in perfectly good repair. The fact is that owing to the condition of the site they could not extend the wharf, and in order to serve the same purpose another breakwater was built, so that between the two there was ample accommodation for the fishermen of Ingonish. Of course, Birk's wharf, as my hon. friend calls it, is a newer structure, more sheltered, and it has not yet got into disrepair. The minister knows that last year he called for tenders to repair this public work. A contract was let to a man whose name is familiar to the minister. He was in the contracting trade, and I have some letters from the department saying that the work would be done. I have always been deploring the pity of allowing this wharf to fall into decay, but after the contract was let something happened and the work was not proceeded with. Now,
I appeal to the minister to take some action in this matter. I think it is very much to be regretted that the department, after deciding to reconstruct the wharf, having put a vote in the Estimates, and called for tenders, accepting a tender and signing the contract, should now give up the idea of doing the work. So far as I can see there is not a dollar in the Estimates for it. When this wharf was built, the enterprising fishermen of the locality built large gasoline boats, which they could anchor behind the breakwater. Before that, only small boats were in use there, boats which the men could haul up from the sea at night. If this breakwater goes to pieces, these large boats will be absolutely without any protection. Every one has found this breakwater to be of the greatest possible benefit, and I trust the minister will not allow it to disappear entirely and thus throw the people back into the primitive and impossible conditions under which they worked before it was built. There are many other structures along the shore in the same condition. Ever since the war I have not asked for one single dollar from the Government for public works, because I have fully realized the conditions under which we were living. But I do appeal to the minister now, not only as a matter of good judgment, but from the point of view of sound economy, that breakwaters and structures of that kind, which are most useful to the people, should not be allowed to fall into decay. Every man in the House, whether on this side, or behind the Government, must agree with the reasonableness of this appeal. I shall be very much disappointed if the minister does not take this matter into serious consideration.


John Howard Sinclair: I do
not think I can support the position which the minister takes. There was a great convenience in having district officers scattered throughout the provinces. The engineers could keep in touch with the work because they were near at hand and knew the people; and there are advantages in connection with district offices as we have them. The rentals will be increased in Halifax. No doubt more room will be required than formerly, and I have no doubt the travelling expenses will be large. When we take into consideration these facts, and the retir-

ing allowances to be paid to the officers that have been released from the service, I fear there will not be very much money saved. If not, the change will not bring an improvement. I hope, however, there will be an improvement, and that a little more care will be taken in the engineering offices with regard to the public works of the province because, for some reason or other, they have not been well attended to of late years. In my own constituency breakwaters have been allowed to fall into decay, out of utter carelessness, that might have been repaired with the expenditure of a very small amount of money. In other eases where the money was voted to make the necessary repairs, the money was misspent and wasted. I want to impress upon the minister the importance of making up his staff in the province of Nova Scotia, and having them look carefully after the public works that still remain there. A good many of these works have been destroyed by storms and practically nothing has been done, or very little, in many places to restore them. In eastern Nova Scotia practically no progress has been made since 1911 in providing additional accommodation for the people of that part of the province. Immense sums of money have been spent throughout the Dominion, the public debt has increased by hundreds of millions, but no part of this expenditure has found its way to eastern Nova Scotia since the Conservative party, the Unionist party, and the National Liberal and Conservative party have had control in this country. Whether the Government intends to go on in that way I do not know; but there is one thing that should be done if the Government wishes to do its duty at all, and that is to look after the existing public works' and see that they are not swept into the sea by storms, when the expenditure of a small amount of money might rebuild and preserve them. I have nothing further to say except that I was very pleased to hear the minister state that if the method he is adopting does not work out well changes may be made in the future. It may be necessary for us to come back to the old arrangement if we find we are not saving any money by the new.


Mr. CHISHOLM:: The minister has
given a certificate of efficiency to Mr. Bernasconi but such a certificate ought to be in proportion to a man's efficiency. When Mr. Bernasconi was at the head of the staff at Sydney he had charge of the works in Cape Breton island, and many monuments exist there that I think do not

testify to his efficiency. Whoever his successor may be, I hope he will be more successful than Mr. Bernasconi was. When I say this, I have reference to several places and in particular to Port Hood. The wharf there has been in the process of decay and destruction for the last five years. Mr. Bernasconi knew all about it, the department was aware of it, and the expenditure, of only $800 at the proper time would have prevented the destruction of which I complain. I notified, the department, and Mr. Bernasconi as well, of what was taking place but without avail. The result is that this process of decay and destruction went on, and now it will require an expenditure of between forty and fifty thousand dollars to put that wharf in the condition in which it formerly was. Last year the Public Works Department had an item of $7,000 in the general Estimates to repair that wharf, but you will be surprised when I tell you, Mr. Chairman, that not one dollar of that money was spent when it should have been, and when it might have saved from $5,000 to $10,000 at least. I refer to this item because I did not happen to be present the other night when the Estimates were under consideration. I now take this opportunity of placing my views before the minister, regardless of whether it will ''ave any effect or not. The minister has been handing out encomiums to Mr. Bernasconi, but I have a word or two of praise to utter in regard to Mr. McKean. In my estimation he is one of the most efficient and painstaking men the department have. I am sorry to hear that he is being retired. I always found that during the storms we had on the rough coast of the county of Inverness Mr. McKean was the boy to go there every time although there were many younger men 'available. Mr. McKean was always found where he was needed and prepared to do everything he could; and speaking personally I would rather have Mr. McKean than any other man in the service in that particular part of the country. I am bound to say that because of the experience I have had of him.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I wish to say something on the same lines as the hon. members who have preceded me. I would like to call the attention of the minister to the dilapidated state of the various public works on the coast of Gaspe. I may, Mr. Chairman, be somewhat out of order but I will only occupy a few minutes and what

I have to say will shorten the debate on other matters.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Steele) :: With
the understanding that the debate will be curtailed I will allow the hon. gentleman to proceed.


Rodolphe Lemieux: There was a big storm, I think three years ago, when some sort of a tornado passed over the gulf of St. Lawrence and even swept-


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: Was it not in 1917?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I do not know as to
that one. However, there was a big tornado some two or three years ago which swept all over the gulf and river of St. Lawrence and partially destroyed many of the public works. I have in mind Perce wharf which was built at a cost of $100,000; a wharf at Cape Cove, another one at Griffin Cove, another at Pox River, and another at Grand Valley, but it had been destroyed long before. Nothing has been done to repair these wharves. I cannot blame the Government for its inaction in this respect during the war because it had to economize, and I moved in the House on various occasions to reduce the expenditure. I am still for a reduction of the expenditure, but is it wise to allow public works to continue in a dilapidated state which could be saved by a little outlay? I see that this year my hon. friend has provided an Estimate of $34,000 for the wharf at Sandy Beach, Gaspe. Of course that is at the terminus of the railway and it is quite proper that this wharf should be repaired. Otherwise, it would certainly jeopardize the operations of the railway and the trade which finds its outlet at that point. But I would like my hon. friend in this reorganization of the engineering districts, to have an estimate prepared of the cost of repairing all these works on that coast. They cannot be replaced at the original cost-that is impossible and I do not ask it-but I am sorry to see a wharf like that at Perce, for instance, cut in two and absolutely useless for navigation purposes. I would like to see my hon. friend during the summer send his new district engineers to that coast and have them prepare an estimate of the cost of the repairs needed, so as to save what remains of the public works there. That was the object of my rising, Mr. Chairman, and I thank you for your courtesy.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: The discussion is out
of order, but perhaps the committee will bear with me while I say a word or two
in reply to the questions which have been asked by the four hon. gentlemen who have just spoken. There are detailed reports in the department of all these various and numerous works located along the coast, and I can assure my hon. friend that one is embarrassed-knowing the small amount of money that is available-with the magnitude of the demands even for repairs. Supplementary Estimates will probably be tabled on Monday, and it will be found that some little provision is being made for most necessary work. Even so, however, there are other works on which an expenditure of money would certainly do much towards saving property, and affording better facilities to districts which depend largely on water transportation for connection with those communities with which they do business. But my hon. friend from Gaspe only a month ago advised us that what the country demands is the strictest possible economy.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Hear, hear.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: And I am going to ask the committee bo patiently receive the small appropriations for these repair works, necessary as they are. My hon. friend from Guysborough made a general statement which, like many general statements, is a little misleading. He says that of all Government expenditures since the formation of Union Government nothing has found its way into eastern Nova Scotia.


John Howard Sinclair: Very little.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: Surely my hon. friend knows that millions have been spent in Cape Breton and in Pictou county. Surely he is aware of the construction of ships at New Glasgow on Government account, and he knows something about the operations of the ship plate mills at Sydney.


John Howard Sinclair: Public works.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: My hon. friend used the term public expenditure. However, some of the preceding discussion was out of order and I will not refer further to it. My hon. friend from Cape Breton North and Victoria has been misinformed regarding repairs to the breakwater at Ingonish. To my knowledge no contract was ever given for repairs to that breakwater. It is true tenders were advertised for, but nothing satisfactory was received, and I really think there are other places along our coasts where $22,000 in repairs


REVISED EDITION. COMMONS
[Stage Direction]
could be spent to greater advantage at the present time.
Mr. MARTIN:: Does the minister intend to replace Mr. McDonald and Mr. Hamilton by other officers?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: The two officers named by my hon. friend from Halifax are recommended by the chief engineer for retirement and their places will not be filled.


Peter Francis Martin: Will they receive a
gratuity?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: I think both of those officers have been in the service for less than ten years, and therefore would be entitled to a gratuity only.


Peter Francis Martin: I am pleased indeed
that the hon. member for Cape Breton had nothing worse to say of Mr. Dodwell than that he was a little older perhaps than one in his position ought to be. He is not very much older than either the hon. gentleman or myself, and I think it will be found that he has been the right man in the right place.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I said nothing about Mr. Dodwell.


Peter Francis Martin: I know you did not.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Nothing at all. I simply asked Mr. Dodwell's age. What has the hon. member for Halifax to say about that? Did I not, Mr. Chairman, have a perfect right to ask the age of a man who was about to be retired? Yet the hon. member for Halifax must have a jibe at me as if I had said something very bad about Mr. Dodwell. I have known him for the last twenty-five years, and he is a capable man; but when it comes to a preference as between officers, we
10 p.m. in this House have a perfect right to know the equitable basis upon which they are dealt with, and the question of age is one of the things to be inquired into. I do not know why the member for Halifax should remark that he was very glad I had nothing else to say about Mr. Dodwell. I did not try to say anything else, and I do not understand the insinuation.


Peter Francis Martin: I am quite aware that the hon. gentleman did not say anything else against Mr. Dodwell, and I am sure, as I said before, that Mr. Dodwell is a very efficient officer. But the hon. member for Cape Breton also intimated that Mr. McKean was dismissed on account of politics. Now, here are these two gentle-

men and I am asking the minister whether they are to receive a gratuity. They are not engineers, but they are very estimable men.


John Howard Sinclair: The
minister doubted the correctness of my statement that very little had been spent by his predecessors in office in 1911 in eastern Nova Scotia, and he referred to expenditure at the steel works, but-


Michael Steele: Both sides of the House are aware that this discussion has been out of order for some time. The item, under consideration is $683,510 for civil government, and I would ask hon. members to confine their remarks thereto.


John Howard Sinclair: I have no desire to prolong the discussion but I should like to say that I do not think the minister has any right to bring up the case of a contract with the Nova Scotia Steel Works to build a ship as an instance of expenditure on public works.


Michael Steele: Order. Shall the item carry?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Rents, repairs, furniture, heating, etc., 54,935,500.
William Stevens Fielding: Would it not be more convenient to take this item by item?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: I move that the committee consider Estimate No. 139 item by item.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Elevator attendants, 570,000.
Alexander William Chisholm: Where is that, Mr. Chairman?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: This covers the elevator attendants in all the public buildings at Ottawa, including the House of Commons.


John Howard Sinclair: I would like to say that we have a very obliging and efficient staff of elevator men in the House of Commons building and personally I have great pleasure in voting their pay.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Lighting, including roads and bridges, 590,000.
Alexander William Chisholm: What does this include-'


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: Lighting of buildings, by the Ottawa Electric, $43,800; by the Hydro Electric, $12,543; Parliament buildings, $4,500; Grand Trunk Railway, for

Railway Commission offices, $1,000; White Way, Wellington street and Post Office- which includes the lighting of Connaught Place-$1,300; contingencies, $11,849.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Do I understand that we pay for the lighting of some of the streets in Ottawa?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: Yes, we pay for the lighting on Wellington street in front of the Parliament buildings and other Government buildings on Wellington street. The same applies to the Laurier bridge across the Rideau canal, and the square in front of the Grand Trunk station.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I can understand that if we cut a canal across a street we must put a bridge across, but I do not see that we should light it. The city itself should light the city streets. This arrangement strikes me as extremely illogical.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: It is part of the agreement with the city of Ottawa that we should do this lighting. My hon. friend is aware that although cities are supposed to light the streets, residents in a particular area may voluntarily contribute to secure additional lighting. If the city of Ottawa were to undertake to light the particular areas under discussion the lighting would not be of the character that we now enjoy; it would be a dim, religious light.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: This is the first time I have learned that we are lighting streets in Ottawa.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: We pay for the lighting only on or in front of property owned by the Federal Government. This is not a new item; it has been voted for many years.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It is only now brought to my notice. It must strike the minister that we are doing altogether too much for the city of Ottawa. If it is proper that we should light Wellington	street, then
every farmer along the highway between here and Toronto might claim to be entitled to lighting in front of his property. As for lighting the grounds on Parliament Hill and areas of that kind, that is all right, but I do not see why we should be called upon to light Wellington street. It would seem as if the city could ask for anything it wants and get it. I must express myself as being against this kind of thing; to me it is most extraordinary and absurd.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
260J
Departments generally-care and cleaning departmental buildings, including $100 to E. Snowden for firing noon gun, $385,000.
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Now, is that firing of the noon gun done for us? I presume this gun is fired after the House closes and when many of us are a thousand miles away-


Mr. DENIS:: And we do not hear it.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: And we cannot hear it. It should be so arranged that we hear the gun, and it should 'be so fired as to register the time at the different places in which we live. Now, seriously, I protest against furnishing powder and shot and attendants for the firing of a gun at Ottawa at every season of the year, whether we are here or not. I was for some years in the legislature of Nova Scotia. A gun is fired in the city of Halifax at certain set hours and my good friend who was Premier of that province for several years can testify that there never was an item in the Estimates presented by the provincial Government to provide for the firing of a gun at Halifax.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: That expense was provided by this Government.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It seems that in Ottawa, however, with the many other things, we have to pay for the firing of this gun. It is all right to allow a wharf to go to pieces and the poor man's boat to be smashed up on the shore, but it must be seen to that the gun on the Hill in Ottawa is kept going. The minister would make a name for himself by looking into the many peculiarities and absurdities that exist as between his department and the city of Ottawa and by cutting out many of these things. Let the city look after its affairs and we will look after ours.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: Judging from my experience in inaugurating a reform in regard to district engineering offices, I am not encouraged to continue if I must rely for encouragement on any approbation received from my hon. friend. There was a sufficient saving effected in that reorganization to fire many guns, many times during the year. But to speak seriously, as a matter of fact this item has been staring my hon. friend in the face in the Estimates every year since 1909. I think he was in the House at that time. That is the year when this vicious practice referred to was initiated, and every year, year after year, he has cheerfully voted $100 towards this expenditure.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Not cheerfully.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: Well, willingly.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Not willingly.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: Silently.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I was always a kicker about the city of Ottawa expenditures.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: The fact is that this item has appeared year after year without my hon. friend publicly objecting to it. It has become quite an institution, and one would not like to see an old institution rooted up. I think the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria (Mr. McKenzie) would he the last man who would want to destroy an ancient landmark.
Mr. SINCLAIR* (Guysborough): This item, is reduced something like $15,000, and I presume the greater part of it is paid to women who clean out the departmental buildings. Seeing them coming out of the departmental buildings in the morning looking very tired, I am surprised to find that while large increases have been given in most of the other items, there is a reduction of $15,000 in this one. I hope this is not taken off the charwomen. If it is, I would feel like protesting against it. We have increased the item: Repairs, furniture, grounds, by $150,000. We have increased the item:	Dominion
public buildings, repairs, furniture, by $30,000. We have increased the item: Fittings and general supplies and furniture, by a large amount, and also rents. I would be sorry to think that we are giving the landlords a large increase of $60, 000 and docking the charwomen who clean the buildings. Why are these large increases made in rents and certain other items? This is a time when increases should not be made, especially in rents.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: I have pleasure in
assuring the committee that the saving in expenses under this heading does not fall on the charwomen. On the contrary the charwomen are this year receiving $1.25, where formerly they received one dollar. There has been, and I hope there will continue to be an improvement in the operation of the service. We are getting more efficient work from those who are serving on the staff; we are paying them a little better wage, and the net result is that we are able to operate this year at a reduced cost. As regards rentals the rental of public buildings is a burning question.


John Howard Sinclair: It is constantly growing.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: It has been growing,
but the growth as exhibited in this appropriation is apparent rather than real, for the reason that formerly a number of rentals of buildings charged to this appropriation were carried in the demobilization vote. The money was spent just the same, but it was paid under a different vote. While I am speaking of rents, I am sure members of the committee will be interested in knowing that strong resistance has been maintained by the department this year against increases in rents. I took the position early in this year that a rental that was sufficient last year should be sufficient this year, and I have steadfastly set my face against any rental increases. That is an attitude wihich is not appreciated by owners of buildings; I have had strong representations, in many cases where the amount of rental was substantial, to increase the rents, but I have been able, with very few and isolated exceptions, to hold rents to those of last year and, in some cases, to effect a reduction. Cenerally speaking, the increase in the item of rents is due to the fact that certain buildings that are shown under this heading this year were last year shown und)er the demobilization vote.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I took up this matter of
rents the other day, and it was held over in order that information might be obtained. I do not know whether the hon. gentleman has the complete list of rented buildings before him or not.


Michael Steele: I might point out to the hon. gentleman that he was not in the chamber when the item was called. The item is:
Departments generally-care and cleaning departmental buildings including $100 to E. Snowden for firing noon gun, $385,000.
The item of rents comes a little later on.


Arthur Bliss Copp: If that item has not been
reached, I do not desire to discuss it now.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Repairs, furniture, grounds, snow and street maintenance, $700,000.
John Howard Sinclair: There
is an increase of $150,000.


Alexander William Chisholm: And less snow last
winter.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: My hon. friend is probably aware that during the year it was necessary to furnish the income tax offices. That is one item which has fallen on us quite heavily this year. In general there

is an increase of expense in every service which calls for wages. I think the average increase in salaries under reclassification of Civil Service comes to between 25 and 33 per cent.


John Howard Sinclair: We
are not talking about that; we are talking about repairs, furniture, grounds.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: A staff of 253 men is employed and paid out of this vote in connection with repairs and keeping in order the grounds, snow removal and street maintenance.


John Howard Sinclair: What
has that to do with the income tax offices?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: The cost of fitting up the income tax offices also comes out of this vote. It is a sort of general vote which includes all these services-furnishing the offices, keeping up the grounds about the buildings, making repairs, alterations, and so on.


Alexander William Chisholm: I thought the income tax offices were in the East block.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: They outgrew those premises, and are now located in the Daly building.


Alexander William Chisholm: Do we rent more
buildings now than we did eight years ago?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: Very many more.


Alexander William Chisholm: It is an extraordinary thing that after putting up two such large buildings as the Hunter building and the Customs building, we still have to rent more buildings. I had hoped that when these buildings were erected, we would not be renting so many buildings, but evidently this condition is going to stay with us.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: Reducing the office
accommodation that you require after the war is something like the cost of living; it is hard to get it down. My hon. friend was present in the House to-day during the discussion over larger pensions, and lie will recall that the Pensions Committee recommended that because of the cost of living, the bonus attached to pensions should not be reduced at the present time. Although the war is over and different staffs are being demobilized, up to the present time we have been able to get clear of only a comparatively small number of buildings. We are vacating at the present time a building on Rideau street, rented for $45,000, also the Bate building on Slater street, with a rental of $16,000, as well as some whole
floors in other buildings throughout the city. My hon. friend knows enough about government operation to know that it is difficult to cut down in that regard. He is familiar with conditions in the province of Nova Scotia. Conditions have not changed there very much, yet the Provincial Government are constantly buying additional buildings. For what purpose? For the increased needs of the service, although the total volume of business in the province is not much greater. That is the tendency all the time, and it is one that those administering a department have constantly to combat. I -am hopeful that in the coming year we shall be able to make, progress along the line of getting clear of some of the buildings which we took over during the latter part of the war, and which are not now so crowded as they were during the war.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: After the Hunter
building and the Customs building were occupied, did we cease to rent any buildings?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: I was not administering the department at that time, so personally, I cannot say what happened, but I understand from my officials that there was such a pressure all round for office space that when these buildings were ready for occupation, the influx from overcrowded departments was such as to fill these buildings in almost no time. I do not think the Hunter building would have been built when it was except for the urgent demand for office space.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Rideau Hall-Allowance for fuel and light, $17,000.
Jean-Joseph Denis: It seems to take quite a
lot of fuel to heat Rideau Hall.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: The vote is the same as last year in spite of the fact that the cost of fuel has gone up, so I think my hon. friend will agree that we are getting off very cheaply this year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Telephone service, $90,000.
Jean-Joseph Denis: Is the Government satisfied with the telephone service we are now getting in Ottawa?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: Frankly, I am not, but I expect by the time this committee assembles next year we shall have an improved telephone service. A new system is being installed by the Bell Telephone Company

which will give more rapid connections at no greater expense, and with no capital outlay. The Bell Telephone Company are putting in a number of large private exchanges between departments, and under the contract payments will only be made to the company for calls routed through the telephone company's central office.


Jean-Joseph Denis: I understand that we have somewhere around 400 telephones in this building. Is a flat rate charged, or so much per phone? How many telephones are there under the number Queen 6400?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: The telephone service
in the House of Commons is a P.B.X. service-a private exchange. The total cost of the telephone to which my hon. friend has just referred is $10,000 per year.


Jean-Joseph Denis: Is that $10,000 a flat rate, or so much per phone? Suppose we have fifty more telephones installed to-morrow, would we still have to pay just $10,000?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: If we add fifty telephones to the present equipment, it would cost more. The contract for $10,000 covers a few more telephones than we have at present.


Jean-Joseph Denis: How many telephones have we for $10,000 a year?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: I will send that information to my hon. friend.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Heating, $450,000.
Jean-Joseph Denis: We passed a few moments ago an item of $540,000 for heating. What is the explanation of this item?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: The first item includes salaries of engineers, foreman and watchmen needed to carry on the heating service.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Of the public buildings in Ottawa ?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: It covers the public buildings in Ottawa.


John Howard Sinclair: Do we burn Canadian coal in these furnaces?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: Wherever possible.
The coal is bought by public tender, and it has been a source of regret to me that Canadian coal companies have not tendered to supply Canadian coal. The matter of coal contracts for buildings throughout the country generally is now being considered, and I hope that we shall be able this year to make larger purchases of coal within the country, thus reducing our imports.


John Howard Sinclair: I
thought that in view of the vigour with which the Minister of Finance has been advocating the purchase of goods made in Canada, he would induce the Minister of Public Works to burn Canadian coal in Ottawa.


Alexander William Chisholm: What is paid for this coal?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: The prices last year were very erratic; anthracite cost $15.50. A committee is now at work studying the problem of replacing the grates and furnaces in a number of buildings with the idea of using bituminous coal, Itheraby reducing the quantity of anthracite required.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Rents, $1,130,000.
Jean-Joseph Denis: Is it the policy of the Government to erect new buildings? This amount would be sufficient to pay the interest on $20,000,000, with which the Government could put up buildings. I am not saying that this should be done now, but what is the policy of the Government in this respect?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: This vote is for buildings in all parts of the country. The policy of the Government is to rent, or buy, or build, whichever is cheapest. Construction costs are not, and have not been, for some years at an attractive level. I made a computation recently, based on the cost of the Hunter building, and found that there was no saving in putting up our own buildings, notwithstanding that the Government can borrow money cheaper than private concerns.


Arthur Bliss Copp: What did the Hunter building cost?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: About $1,350,000 in
round numbers. We can get first-class premises to rent in other parts of the city, and investigations have convinced me that at present it is not practicable to build economically. Provision has been made for a site on the western side of the west block, and in the course of time buildings should be constructed there. That is not in immediate prospect, but it would be well for us to keep it in mind. The architects are working on plans, and when construction costs are more attractive, and other conditions are favourable, construction will be proceeded with.


William Stevens Fielding: Is the Daly building rented, or owned by the Government?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: It is rented, but it would be cheaper for the Government to purchase the building.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I should like a statement from the minister, giving the names and the locations of the various government buildings rented in Ottawa, together with the rentals. If it is not convenient, I do not insist on having it to-night, but if the list is not too long, he might put it on Hansard.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: I shall be pleased to send it to my hon. friend; the list is rather long.


Arthur Bliss Copp: There should be some
definite policy as to procuring public buildings required for governmental offices. It is safe to say that the Hunter building, at the present rate of building costs, could be put up at $1,000,000, and if you could get ten such buildings constructed and centralized for government offices, i.t would be a very great convenience to members who have any departmental work to do. At present, one needs a guide to lead him around the city of Ottawa. The vast majority of members have departmental business to do, and the experience is that when you begin at one end of the city, in the Daly building, for instance, you are next sent to some building behind the Dominion theatre, or some other place in an equally remote locality, so that it takes two or three days to do the little work one has with the departmental offices. Of course, if the present system is economical, I must support the minister in it, but I should like bo get the list for which I have asked in order to come to some conclusion as to what savings could be effected in regard to the rental of buildings throughout Ottawa. In the last two or three years, I have seen vans moving office effects from one place to another, and it would be well to have a number of government buildings to house all the departments. I can understand that during the war extra space was required for the Militia Department to carry on their work, but now that the war is over the Government should embark without delay upon a definite policy in regard to the public buildings, to house the officials required for the various branches of the public service.
My hon. friend spoke of renting good buildings at a cheaper rate than he could build them for. Doubtless there are such buildings that afford proper accommodation
and are very well arranged for departmental purposes; but from my experience in going into a number of these buildings I should say they are not so arranged that business can be efficiently carried on in them, neither is it conducive to economy to rent such buildings. I would suggest to my hon. friend therefore that he take this matter up very earnestly and next year when his Estimates are under review give the committee a full review of the subject dealing especially with the whole matter of the erection or rental of buildings for public offices.


William Stevens Fielding: Many of these buildings, as my hon. friend from Westmoreland has said, are so located or arranged as to occasion very real inconvenience not only to members but to those who desire to know where the various departments are to be found. I should think that a little guide book indicating where each department can be found would really be a very useful thing at the present time.


John Howard Sinclair: I understand this item covers the rental for buildings all over the Dominion. Now it was drawn to my attention not long since that the Customs House in Toronto was torn down some years ago and no person up there appears to understand why it was done. It would really seem as though the Government are looking for ways of wasting money. I understand the old Custom House served the required purpose very well. True it was considered a little small for a city like Toronto and it was expected that ere long a new Custom House would be built. However the Government tore down the old building and did not replace it, and they are now paying a high rental to somebody for the building that is at present being used for customs purposes. A few days ago I asked a question on the subject in the House, and I was told that $53,000 had been paid for rental since the demolition of the old Custom House. My information is that no steps have been taken to erect a new building and that the structure that was torn down was quite as convenient in every way as the present building for which a high rental is being paid. I would like to get an explanation from the minister, if he is able to give it, as to why the Government gave the P. Lyall Company a contract to demolish the Toronto Custom House and then rented another building for which they have paid $53,000 up to date, and why they have

taken no steps to replace the building that was pulled down.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: I do not think I can add much to the answer that was given to my hon., friend's question the other day. My hon. friend was then told it was the intention of the Government at the time a decision was arrived at to go on with the reconstruction, and that is why the demolition of the old building was begun.


John Howard Sinclair: My
hon. friend does not mean that the site of the old Custom House is to be used for some other purpose?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: Oh, no.


John Howard Sinclair: Why
did the Government demolish the old building then?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: With the intention of rebuilding.


William Stevens Fielding: On the same site?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: Yes on the same site. However the reconstruction was not proceeded with. There are a great many meritorious construction projects in view, but it is a question whether it is wise to go on with them at the present moment.


John Howard Sinclair: It is not a wise policy to tear down a building and then allow some years to elapse before replacing it.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: Perhaps it is not, but I would point out to my hon. friend that in the case of the Toronto Custom House the saving of interest on the money that would be spent in the new construction will amount to more than the amount now being paid in rent. The present premises are not as convenient perhaps for the public, although the Ideation is a convenient one, and the loss is in that sense and not in the amount paid in rent. If I had anticipated the raising of this question to-night I would have brought before the committee the detailed1 results of the study I made three or four months ago of this very question. I have already given the committee one result of that study which is, that based on present construction prices, it is not economical for the Government to erect new office buildings under present conditions.


John Howard Sinclair: I
understand that, but why tear down the old building if it was not intended to replace it?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: I quite understand tile purpose of my hon. friend's question. He wants to know why one -building was torn down and another not put in its place. Well, I simply say that construction conditions have become very difficult. Construction costs and the cost of obtaining money went very high, as my hon. friend knows. If he adds these two factors to

gether he must conclude that the Government is justified in postponing plans for construction. At any rate that was the conclusion of the Government. If construction costs are high, and the cost of obtaining money falls very low we might go on and build; but if construction costs are up and the cost of borrowing also up at the same time, it puts a different face on the whole matter.


Auguste Théophile Léger: What is the name of the owner of rented building?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: The owner's name is J. Peters.


Mr. BALDWIN:: Is the rental allowance to postmasters throughout the country included in that total -amount of rentals for the whole Dominion?


Mr McCURDY:: No, those amounts are not included in this vote.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Yukon Public Buildings-Rents, Repairs, Fuel, Light, Water Service and Caretaker's salary, $40,000.
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: In view of the small population in the Yukon now and the small amount of business that appears to be done there, for what purpose do we expend $40,000 in connection with public buildings?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: It is quite true that the population of the Yukon is not increasing but rather the reverse. A departmental committee is at present studying the question of administration there, and I think it is quite possible-although I do not want to ask that this vote be reduced-that not nearly the whole amount will be required. There will be a saving probably in the vicinity of $10,000, -but I am not sufficiently sure of the time at which the report will take effect to ask the committee to reduce the amount of the vote.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Victoria B.C. - Astrophysical Observatory (Little Saanich Mountain)-Maintenance, Repairs, etc., $3,500.
Arthur Bliss Copp: Before the committee leaves the general item connected with rentals I would like to ask my hon. friend a question in regard to buildings like the Rea Building which the Government have rented. Where the whole building is rented, is the cost of heating and lighting included in the rental, or do the Government pay for that besides?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: The practice varies in different buildings. In the case cited by my hon. friend the department does pay for the lighting and heating. The rental of the building is $85,000 a year and in addition we bear the cost of lighting and caretaking.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I suppose that would be
true generally where you have the whole building rented?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: As a rule where we
have the whole building we take care of the service.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Harbours and rivers, $4,031,000.
Georges Henri Boivin: This item No. 128
was under consideration immediately after the House resumed this evening, and Mr. Leger had asked a question concerning it.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: I will answer that now. This amount of $1,250,000 for St. John Harbour is required to carry on the following improvements:
Courtenay Bay Improvements under
contract	$1,200,000
St. John West, protection to concrete
exposed to sea' action	 10,000
Maintenance of harbour work.. ..	40,000
The Courtenay bay improvements are required-so the report goes on to state- to increase the present shipping facilities in St. John harbour. The work comprises an extension of the existing breakwater for a distance of 2,500 feet, dredging channel from main Channel St. John harbour to the basin in front of the proposed dry dock for an area 7,200 feet long by 500 feet wide to a uniform depth of 22 feet, . completing dredging of basin in front of proposed dry dock to a depth of 22 feet, and dredging the channel from the basin to the proposed dry dock. The total estimated cost is $4,917,478.10.


William Stevens Fielding: Yet to be spent or including past expenditure?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: That refers to the
present contract. These are the figures:
Amount of contract, as per unit
prices, approximately	 $4,683,312 50
Gross amount of last progress
estimate No. 27	 2,606,690 00
Amount of work still to be performed to complete contract, about	 $2,076,622 50
Drawback	 $ 260,660 00
Further amount earned but withheld owing to exhaustion of appropriation for St. John Harbour improvements ..	..	181,990 00


Auguste Théophile Léger: What time of the year
was this contract given?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: July 11, 1918.


Auguste Théophile Léger: In view of the financial
situation of the country a couple of years ago and at the present time I think that that contract should never have been entered into. Repairs to small wharves in various parts of the country, have to be neglected for lack of money, and yet we see this large amount of $1,250,000 expended in a way that I do not think will result in any benefit to the country for some years to come.


William Stevens Fielding: Do the figures include the dry dock?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: [DOT] No, the dry dock is being constructed under the Dry Dock Subsidies Act-an entirely different matter.


William Stevens Fielding: I think I am right
in stating that the dry dock forms part of the other contract. The two were associated together at one time, and although the Dry Dock Subsidies Act may apply, I think the contractors included in their undertaking the building of the dry dock.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: In this sense, that the contract for the St. John harbour improvements bound the contractors to build under the Dry Dock Subsidies Act a dry dock.


William Stevens Fielding: But the figures given by the hon. gentleman do not include the dry dock at all?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: No.


William Stevens Fielding: The dry dock being
part of the general operations, cannot the hon. gentleman tell us what progress has been made with it? It is part of the same scheme.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: No vote is asked for the purpose of the dry dock, and I have not complete particulars under my hand regarding it; but, generally speaking, the excavation of the dry dock has been completed

under the contract, and I think the approach to the dry dock is almost completed.


William Stevens Fielding: Who are the present contractors? I think there was some change at one time.	.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: The St. John Dry Dock and Shipbuilding Company Limited.


William Stevens Fielding: Are they local people? The original contractors were from the Old Country.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: The original contractors in 1911 were Norton, Griffiths and Company Limited.


William Stevens Fielding: They are not now?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: No. I understand the
contractors are all Canadians. Some Ontario people, I believe, are members of the company. It is a limited liability company, and the information I have comes from the advertisements in connection with some of the bonds issued by the company.


Arthur Bliss Copp: The contract was first
awarded to Norton, Griffiths and Company Limited. Did they do any work at all, and was anything paid to them?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: The final estimate paid to Norton, Griffiths and Company Limited was $3,913,802.07.


William Stevens Fielding: A fresh contract was made, I think, in 1918 with the local company?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: That is correct.


Arthur Bliss Copp: That contract was for
$4,000,000 odd?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: Yes.


Arthur Bliss Copp: The whole cost of the work would be what was paid to Norton Griffiths and Company Limited and the present contract for some $4,000,000 odd?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: Yes.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Can my hon. friend tell me from any report of his engineers when this work is to be completed?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: The contract calls for completion on June 30, 1922.


Arthur Bliss Copp: This Courtenay bay work has been before the public for a great many years, and if it is going to be of any service to the Maritime Provinces by providing us with a winter port, I should like to see it carried to completion. Is the work being carried on now without any break?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: The work ceased for
about two months during last winter on account of exhaustion of the appropriation, but it was resumed about three or four weeks ago. I do not know whether or not the work will be completed at the time set out in the contract; it is difficult to anticipate just what progress will be made.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I read in the press some
time ago an article rather condemning this work on the ground that the silt and sand was filling in as the dredging was being done. Have any reports been made to the department as to the probable final success of the work?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: As my hon. friend has said, this project of the improvement of Courtenay bay has been before the public for many years. Many able engineers have opinions on the subject, and possibly there is difference of opinion as to just how effective the work will be. I have not had occasion to inquire particularly into what will be the result of the work as completed. The department has not been initiating anything new in Courtenay bay; the works at present being carried on are proceeding under contract, and I think my hon. friend will understand that there is no special reason why engineering investigations should be made as to their ultimate working out. As a matter of fact, engineers' opinions differ, and any investigation now might be productive only of further opinions. A more satisfactory study of that aspect of the question could probably be made when the present work is completed.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I can hardly agree with my hon. friend in that regard. I should think that sufficient work had been done to enable engineers and experts in that line to form some definite opinion in the matter. I would be very sorry to learn that the condemnation to which I have referred is well-founded, because I have always looked forward to the time when the port of St. John would be of very great advantage to Canada, and I am sure that the completion of this work will be of great benefit to the [DOT] winter port business of the Maritime Provinces as well as to the trade of the whole of Canada. But there have been rumours in different quarters indicating a very strong opinion on the part of some that this work is a waste of public money. I do not believe that is the case, and I think the department would only be doing justice to the Maritime Provinces, and to the port

of St. John in particular, as well as to itself if it made clear through the reports of its engineers that such statements are-I shall not say untrue, but at least exaggerated, and that this work is being carried on with the intention of bringing it to completion in the belief that it will be the advantage to the country that it was intended to be when it was initiated many years ago.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Surely sufficient work
has been performed to enable the department to know whether or not the statements made by the hon. member for Westmoreland are well founded.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I want to correct my hon.
friend. It was not my statement; I was only repeating what I had heard.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I understand-a statement repeated as a rumour or belief that this dredging is filling up as the work goes on. How much money has been expended since the commencement of the work?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: The total amount up to the time of the last progress Estimate, spent by both governments, was $6,520,492.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What have we to show for the expenditure of that large sum?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: Some time when my
hon. friend is going to Nova Scotia, if he will take the Canadian Pacific, stop off at St. John and inspect the work there, he will be very much impressed with the work that has been done. It has not yet advanced to the point where it can be used for commercial shipping. There is still to be over $2,000,000 spent before the present contract is completed.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I should think that
some of the work is being completed as we go along. We cannot dredge in layers; the dredging would be done over a certain area and to a certain depth, and then the work would be proceeded with on another area. There should be no trouble in ascertaining whether or not the parts that are being dredged are filling up again.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: None of the dredging
is down to grade as yet. In other words, to use my hon. friend's own expression, the dredging is done in layers, and all the layers have not been taken off at any one part of the harbour. That is, the maximum depth which is to be reached under the contract has not been attained in any part of the area that is being dredged.


James Alexander Robb: Have they got down to
rock at any place?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: At the entrance to the outer dock it is rock excavation, but further out in the bay it is sand, clay and gravel- more movable material. I have just sent a chart over to my hon. friend for his inspection.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: This picture, althougn it is somewhat pretty, is Greek to me; I do not make anything of it. It is nice drafting with red letters and figures, bur it is absolutely incomprehensible from my standpoint. What I want to know, and what I think the committee wants to know from the minister, is what value the Dominion of Canada is getting for this large expenditure of money. Six million dollars is a considerable amount. We have spent that amount, and we are committed to expend four or five million dollars more under the contract of 1918. It is a proper thing for us to know what we are getting for this.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: About $2,000,000 more.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Is it likely that when we have completed the dredging and the harbour is extended, as it was proposed at the beginning, the harbour will " stay put," or will it fill up again? There is indication that it will fill up from year to year because the sea action will certainly fill in the space that has been dredged out. This matter should be very closely watched, and if the minister finds that the action of the sea is filling up the space as fast as the old material is being removed, common sense and precaution would teach us to stop the business at once and expend the money, if in St. John, to some better purpose. Have we yet finally taken over the harbour of St. John? A couple of years ago we passed legislation to take over the harbour of St. John and make it a public harbour under the control of a commission. Has that been done?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: My hon. friend is possibly aware that this work which he has been discussing is proceeding under contract. He says: "Why do you hot stop and spend the money elsewhere?"


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The minister will find that the work is useless.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: The contract is in existence and we are operating under the contract.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Surely the minister will not say that if the department discover that they have entered into an im-

provident contract and are spending money to no purpose, they must go on spending until the end of the contract.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: I am not contending
anything of the kind; I am simply making the statement that the matter of the advisability of the work was doubtless decided before the contract was entered into, and we are proceeding at the present time under this contract. Before this contract is completed, investigations will have been initiated and completed, as I assured the hon. member for Westmoreland (Mr. Copp), under conditions where better observations can be made than' at present to determine whether further work will be done or what additional action should bo taken after the present contract is completed. St. John harbour has not been put under a commission. An Act was passed by Parliament some years ago; but before that would become effective, I think a plebiscite of the citizens of St. John is required. That plebiscite has not yet been taken.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: There is no such
provision as far as I can remember.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: Possibly not. I am
not familiar with the communications at that time between.the city of St. John and' the Government, but I have always understood that the legislation would not become effective until a plebiscite was taken. Until that plebiscite is taken, there is no intention of proceeding further under the legislation.


William Stevens Fielding: Is the contract for a lump sum or for quantities and prices?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: The contract is for
[DOT] estimated quantities at unit prices.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I do not hope to get
very much practical result from my talk to the minister. It is unwise to say that we are going to continue under this contract until we remove the quantity and expend the amount of money mentioned in the contract, if we are doing no good to the country -by that expenditure. There are certainly some well-founded reports that this space dredged is filling in again and it will be the part of wisdom for the minister to satisfy himself whether or not that is the case. If he finds out that the space that we have already dredged is filling up again, he should come to this House for authority to cancel that contract and to take the consequences of cancelling it. I am sure hon. members will stand behind the minister and the department in
TMr. McKenzie. 1
setting aside an undertaking that appears to be abortive. It is not an answer to give to members of this House to say: "Well, I do not know whether this is filling up or not; I do not know whether this work is going to be useless or not; I do not know whether the story that it is filling up as rapidly as it is being removed is true or not; but I have a contract to do a certain quantity of dredging, and I must go on until that is done, and then I will know whether the money has been properly spent or not." That does not seem to be the answer that a business man like the minister should give.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: There is a resident
engineer on this work, and I am sure if conditions such as my hon. friend represents existed) there the department would be advised. No word of this kind has come to me. I have inquired of the officials of the department, and they say that no report of this kind has come to them. I, therefore, hesitate to believe that the rumours are correct; but I shall, of course, make inquiries at once of the engineer.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I presume this engineer, whoever he is, will report only what he is asked to report. He values his head and his life, and he knows very well the feeling in the city of St. John about these expenditures on public works. Any civil engineer who cares to remain on his job in the department and be alive in St. John, is not going to make any report to say that this work is useless unless he is specifically asked to do so, and even then I question very much whether such an engineer would do so.
Mr'. McCURDY:	I shall send a special
engineer to report.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The minister should
send the best man he has to get a full, conclusive and reliable report as to conditions.
I am sure he will find that he is wasting public money if he goes on with the contract.


John Howard Sinclair: Is the
dredge Tornado still working in Courtenay bay?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: I believe she is still
operating in St. John harbour.


John Howard Sinclair: She
is costing a great deal of money.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: She is paid under this
contract. The contractors are entitled to so much per yard under the contract and the

more material she can remove, the more quickly she will finish.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Ottawa public buildings-heating, including salaries of engineers, firemen and watchmen, further amount required, $167,000.
Mr. PARDEE:: At what points is this to be expended?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: $142,000 is required to pay the salaries of engineers and firemen, and $25,282 to pay for coal.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What Supplementary Estimates are these?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: These are to complete last year's expenditures.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: This is money the Government has expended without the authority of Parliament. How do we get into that scrape?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: We are coming to Parliament now for authority to expend this money. Conditions in the coal trade could hardly be forecasted at the beginning of last year. Prices have gone up, and this is the further amount we require. The coal has been supplied, but we cannot pay the contractors until the money is voted. The contractors have been waiting three or four months for their pay.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: But the money is expended already.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: In effect.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: And it has been expended without authority. Why does not the department ask for the proper amount of money in the first place, instead of cutting down the Estimates with the idea of making them look small and then asking for supplementary votes to make up the deficiency? That is not business like.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: You can either ask for a little more than you want, or a little less than you would like to have. I had rather expected to be commended because we had asked the House for a little less than we actually required.


John Howard Sinclair: My
hon. friend and his colleagues are asking for $14,000,000 in these further Supplementary Estimates. It looks as if the whole thing was going wild. I see that some of it is chargeable to capital, and has been expended without authority. It is unprecedented in my experience to have an expenditure on capital account without Parliamentary authority.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: We have no capital expenditure.


John Howard Sinclair: It may not be in this department, but there is an expenditure on capital account in these Supplementary Estimates. Then we have items like this: overtime, $25,000; miscellaneous, further amount required, $235,000.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: I can give my hon. friend the details of any vote that I am asking for.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It is bad business. When the party I support was in power there was nothing fought so bitterly by hon. gentlemen then in Opposition as any expenditure of this kind, when a minister would dare to come to the House after he had expended the money and ask for a blanket authority to cover it. We have $14,000,000 in these Supplementary Estimates, which has been expended by the different departments without any authority at all. Very poor calculations must have been made in the first place when such a further large amount is required. There is no disposition on thp part of the House to refuse any vote a minister may properly ask, tout the minister should figure out with some degree of accuracy the amount he requires, put it in the Estimates, get the money, and then expend it properly; but he comes here with a haphazard guess, and between them they are $14,000,000 short, which they have expended without the slightest particle of authority. I do not know how the $14,000,000 is divided as between the different departments, but this money has been expended and must be paid. That is not the proper way to do business, and I hope in the future the Minister of Public Works will figure more closely what he requires, and ask for that amount, and not bring down Supplementary Estimates of this kind.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: I am afraid my hon. friend has a very short memory. He referred to the time when the Government which he supported was criticised for bringing down Supplementary Estimates.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: And for very small amounts.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: All I am asking for is $543,270. My hon. friend thinks that is a monstrous proceeding. I find that in 190809, the Department of Public Works, instead of asking for $543,270, asked for $1,285,366.73.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What for?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: Further Supplementary Estimates for the Public Works Department-exactly on all fours with this vote.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What kind of Supple-mentaries?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: The same kind we are discussing here now.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I would like my hon. friend to give details of the $1,285,366.73 vote he just mentioned.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: The example that I
have given is not an isolated one. I find that in 1909-1910 the Department of Public Works asked for further Supplementary Estimates amounting to over $1,077,000. In 1907-1908, $1,173,337.49 was asked for, for the very same purpose. There was no substantial decrease below '$1,000,000 until the year 1911, then this department asked Parliament for $715,696, and in the following year for $244,000, the next year for $303,000, the next year for $425,000, and in 1916-1917 they got it down to $9,993.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: We are not responsible for the expenditure of 1916-1917.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: No, but compare the vote of that year with the votes asked for in 1907-1908, and on up to 1911.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: No matter what the votes were, I say it is bad practice to spend money without the authority of Parliament.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: I quite agree that that should be avoided wherever possible, but my hon. friend knows that last year was a peculiar one. The price of coal could1 not be anticipated. What would my hon. friend have us do? Close down the furnaces? The public service must go on.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What furnaces?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: The furnaces that heat the public buildings in Ottawa.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The price of coal has not gone up to that extent.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: We had either to buy coal, or let the furnaces go out. We chose the course of buying the coal and keeping the fires going.


John Howard Sinclair: How
much is included in this item for coal?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: $25,282 for coal, and $142,000 for salaries for engineers and firemen.


John Howard Sinclair: You
could have anticipated what the salaries would be.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: I do not think that could have been anticipated any more than the price of coal. My hon. friend knows what happened with regard to the supply of coal on Government contracts last year. A new agreement was made with the miners, in August I think it was, called the Montreal agreement, whereby an advance in wages was given, and consumers of coal, the Government among the number were asked to pay more for coal. That was something that could not be foreseen.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The Montreal agreement was late in October, and every Government establishment in the country had coal before that.


John Howard Sinclair: That
covers $25,000, but there is $167,000 in this item.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: Salaries of engineers
and firemen amount to $142,000.


John Howard Sinclair: Those salaries should be foreseen. There is no reason why we should not know at the beginning of the year, how many engineers we need for the public buildings in Ottawa. There is something to be said for the minister's argument in regard to coal, but he can hardly justify the large amount for the salaries of additional engineers. And then there is $55,000 for water. Do we not know what we are paying for water in the public buildings in Ottawa? How did that increase come about?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: The increase in the pay of the engineers, firemen, etc., could not have been foreseen any more than the increase in regard to the miners under the Montreal agreement.


John Howard Sinclair: I am not disputing the coal, but the engineers.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: But I have to mention the coal to show the reason for the other increases. Coal went up because the wages of the miners went up, and other expenses went up in consequence. These engineers, firemen, etc., came under the reclassification by the Civil Service Commission, and were put on prevailing rates, and the result is they were entitled to $142,000 more pay than they would have received under the rates that existed at the time the Estimates were adopted last year. Were we to let these men go without their pay, or put them on part pay until Parliament as-

sembled, when ws could get an appropriation?


John Howard Sinclair: The
fiassification was before the House last year.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: It was not completed until the middle of 1920, so far as these ' employees are concerned.


Thomas Vien: As a matter of fact, the reclassification increased the salaries of very few civil employees. I understood that instead of increasing their salaries, in most cases, it decreased them. This, I believe, does not apply during the tenure of office of present holders, but in very few cases did the reclassification increase salaries.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: My hon. friend is quite incorrect. I have not encountered any cases where salaries were decreased under the reclassification.


Thomas Vien: The maximum, in many
classes I can point out, have been lowered.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: You are talking about classifications of positions and grades; I am talking about the amount of money payable to engineers and firemen, and I have not come across a single case where the wages have been decreased.


John Howard Sinclair: The
classification did not affect the water, and the minister has not explained that.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: This is the first year in which the Government is liable to pay rental of $35,000 to the city of Ottawa under the new agreement. I am informed, by the officials of the department, that at the beginning of last year this agreement with the city of Ottawa had not been completed, and therefore no vote was taken for water.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: There is no use getting off with any camouflage of that kind.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: I rise to a point of
order.; I ask the hon. member to withdraw that expression.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What else is it? It is a good word.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I care not what the minister says; there is no use in trying to camouflage the House by stating things which the records of the House do not bear out.


Georges Henri Boivin: I do not think the expression is in order; it is not in order for one hon. gentleman to accuse another of attempting to camouflage the House.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I did not say, attempting; I said, actually camouflaging the House.


Georges Henri Boivin: I fear that would be still worse.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The contract with the city of Ottawa was signed while the House of Commons was in session, and all the details were discussed with the Minister of Railways (Mr. Reid), who was then Acting Minister of Public Works. Now the minister says that it was not passed during that time.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: I never said that the agreement was not passed. I said that the officials of the department advised me that the agreement was not signed at the time the Estimates were brought down last year.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The agreement was
signed and adopted while the House was sitting. There is no use in the minister and his officials shaking their heads and finding there is no sound inside.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: There is a good deal elsewhere.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I have a distinct recollection that we discussed this matter and criticised it, and if my hon. friend will consult the Minister of Railways, that hon. gentleman will tell him what difficulty he had in getting the agreement through.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Harbours and Rivers, Nova Scotia, $2,370.
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: In Victoria and North Cape Breton we have perhaps the largest coastline of any county in Canada, including the inland waters of the Bras d'Or lakes and the seacoast, throughout which it is necessary to have harbours, breakwaters and wharves. During the fifteen years the Liberal party was in power, and the member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) was Minister of Finance, several wharves and breakwaters were built which were absolutely necessary for that part of the country. I am sorry that the present minister's policy is to allow these wharves to rot and fall to pieces, leaving no accommodation for the fishermen's boats. We have no railroads in the county of Victoria for a distance of over one hundred and twenty miles. The only means of com-

munication in the districts not served by railway, is by boat along the coast and the boat must call at wharves in order to do business. The present minister is allowing these wharves to fall to pieces, and there will soon be no place for the boats to call at. On behalf of the people of North Cape Breton and1 Victoria I register my complaint before the minister and before this committee. While we need) more wharves I am not asking for the building of new structures; I am simply asking that the old wharves and breakwaters be kept in repair, and that the privileges which the people have enjoyed for many years past shall not be taken away from them. That, I think, is a reasonable proposition. The minister is spending ten or twelve millions of money in the harbour of St. John on a very doubt ful venture, on a new enterprise, on a thing that is not going to bring any good to anybody. The people of St. John and the people of the province generally are getting along splendidly with the present accommodation in the harbour of St. John, but it seems that we must spend all these millions of additional money in dabbling in the mud in Courtenay bay without any certainty of proper results. Yet the minister has not a dollar to maintain the wharves and breakwaters in the county which I represent in a proper state of repair. I want to tell my hon. friend that I do not regard that as a proper policy. I would therefore like to know from him what the policy of the department is in regard to these breakwaters? When he finds that a wharf, or a breakwater, will cost $1,000 to repair does he propose to allow that structure to fall to pieces and leave nothing at all for the use and service of the public? I would like to hear from the minister what he has to say so that the people whom I represent will know what the policy of the Government is, and what hope they have for the future in regard to these public undertakings which are so very useful to them? There are several members from Nova Scotia, and some from Cape Breton, and they know what I am talking about. They know the places which are served by these wharves and breakwaters and they know how absolutely helpless the people will be if there is no opportunity for boats to call at regular intervals in order to allow them to carry on their trade.


Georges Henri Boivin: Shall the item carry?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: No, I am not going
to be defeated by the minister. He will

either give me some answer as to what his policy is, or we will have to talk a little further on the subject.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: The hon member for
Inverness (Mr. Chisholm) had the floor and I had no opportunity to reply.


Alexander William Chisholm: I thought the minister was not going to make any reply to my hon. friend from North Cape Breton and Victoria and for that reason I rose to ask him a question. The other day when we were discussing the Estimates of the Public Works Department I was unfortunately absent. I may be a little out of order now, but I want to get some information as to the intentions of the minister and his department with respect to Port Hood wharf. There is an item of $7,000 in the Estimates, for this wharf, but I do not know what it is proposed to do with this money. The people of Port Hood-in fact the people of a large section of country-are anxious to know what is going to be done in the matter of this wharf, which is so necessary to the boat which calls at the port. They are totally dependent upon this service, it is the only one they have. I have already informed the minister that the wharf is in a dilapidated condition and that in its present state the boat cannot go near it. I will, therefore, be pleased if the minister will tell me what his intentions are.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: I have been hoping to
be able to visit the place of which my hon. friend from Inverness speaks, but hon. gentlemen will realize how difficult it is for a minister to get far away from this scene of his labours. My hon. friend knows that large sums of money have been spent on the Port Hood wharf, which has existed ever since Confederation. I have not the exact figures of that expenditure with me, but I think a total in excess of $250,000 has been spent on Port Hood harbour. That is my recollection at any rate. Requisitions for additional expenditures continue to come in, but I would really like to see the place myself before determining what shall be done. Engineers' reports and plans are all very good, but they do not make a matter as clear as do personal observations on the spot. I cannot give my hon. friend any assurance at the present moment in regard to further expenditures in Port Hood harbour. Neither can I say very much more to my hon. friend from North Cape Breton and Victoria, than has been already said at this sitting of the committee. Large requisitions are coming in

from all parts of the country for repair works, some of which are very urgent. I doubt if it is going to be possible to get large enough appropriations this year to care even for the very, very necessary works; and if it comes to a case of spending $22,000 on work of the character mentioned by my hon. friend earlier in the evening, it will be totally impossible to get round to the very urgent works. I do not know what my hon. friend wishes me to say further than that. Some of the urgent repair works will be provided for in the Supplementary Estimates this year, but those votes are not going to be large. Perhaps this matter could stand over until the Supplementary Estimates come down when I could talk with a little more freedom than I can at the present time.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The minister said ne called for tenders last year for the In-gonish breakwater, the preservation of which is a most serious proposition to the people of that place. I understood notification was sent to the lowest tenderer and that for a long time he was waiting to receive the contract. I think I had the right to take it for granted that once the department called for tenders it had made up its mind to finish the work. But nothing was done. The wharf is exposed to the Atlantic swell of the Gulf breaking on that shore, and any dilapidated structure very soon gets worse. I did hope that while there was opportunity of repairing the main body of the old structure something would be done, and that thereby the interests of the people would be safeguarded.


Alexander William Chisholm: The minister did not quite understand what I had reference to. I did not mention Port Hood harbour but Port Hood wharf. The harbour is a different matter altogether. As a result of the delay in finishing that undertaking the harbour is being absolutely spoiled through the accretion of sand banks and so forth. The provision for this wharf has been voted and revoted until actually the item has whiskers. I do not know what the department have in view. They sent a dredge there last fall to dredge a foundation for the new wharf. If they would only do something to put the wharf in condition so that shipping could approach the shore,and deliver their cargoes we would be satisfied, but there seemed to be a spirit of utter indifference. A carload ol engineers have been down to examine and report on that wharf year after year and month after month. It appears to me
that there is a disposition on the part of somebody to allow the old wharf to be absolutely destroyed, and that will end the whole thing-until a change of Government.


William Stevens Fielding: I hate to interfere
where Nova Scotia is concerned, but down in that province, especially in the constituency of my hon. friend (Mr. McKenzie) they have a profound respect for the Sabbath, and if you look at the clock I think you will probably see the wisdom of adjourning.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Tedegraph and telephone lines-land and cable telegraph lines, Lower St. Lawrence and Maritime Provinces, including working expenses of vessels required for cable service-further amount required, $40,000.
James Alexander Robb: Is that for construction or operation?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: Increase in salaries.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.
On motion of Right hon. C. J. Doherty the House adjourned at 12.05 a.m. Sunday.
Monday, May 30, 1921